Main | October 2008 »

September 30, 2008

Presidential Debate Critiques

I'll be covering the Presidential Debate reviews as done by three different press outlets including CNN, Fox News and Kare 11. I believe this will give the perspective from two large media outlets that have differing views on the candidates and then also a local outlet to see the Twin City spin that may have been put on it.

The Wall Street Journal coverage of the Presidential Debates looked at a comparison of the Reagan / Mondale debates of 1984 and saw how the current debates parralelled them in both syle and effect. The Journal noted that while Mondale had a great debate in 84 much as McCain did recently, it still won't change the facts that there are underlying fundamentals that can't be ignored. The Journal seemed to favor Obama as the victor and placed him ahead of McCain due to his consistant message that he is not more fo the same.

Salon Online covered the debates in a pretty partial manner in stating that it's the beginning of the end for McCain and the Republican party. They said some of it had to do with the 'unraveling' of the economy but mostly just due to the fact that his stance as a cadidate is thin and untennable in the long term. Obama was touted as beign the young rosy cheeked senator from a sepratist state while McCain was portrayed as an old man barely keeping his head above the waterline. Clrealy, Obama will be leading the country into the next four years...or so Salon says.

The Star Tribune coverage was great. Th wealth of stories covered everything from the substance and stylke of teh candidates to the way that McCain is out of touch with temiddle class and how he failed to mention them in during his debates keypoints. Even at this point the edge was given to Obama with he campaign solidly overtaking McCains efforts during teh debates. Clear winner for the Strib...Obama.


September 22, 2008

Wall Street Troubles Ahead

The New York Times financial analyst Peter Goodman had a fantastic article on the current market crisis. Goodman went into enough detail to filll in an uninformed person as to what the details of the governments plans for the future of our economy will be. His use of sources was quite good, quoting a former vice chair of the Federal Reserve and also an NYU business professor. I came away from this article feeling like I knew what the possible plan would do and how it would do it. I didn't get that from the others that i read.

The Wall Street Journal article from Hitt, Palletta and Solomon seemed to focus more on the political aspect of the crisis and not as much on the economics of it as the Times did. This may be due to the normal readership of the Journal being more knowledgable in regards to finances than the average Times reader. Also there is a very 'government involved' discussion between the reader and the author in the Journals coverage. When I say that i mean that they very much go into the politics of it and not just the basics of who is passing what and for how much.

The local Star Tribune coverage from the AP was adequate for someone that didn't want an in-depth look at every facet of bailout. While covering the major players it didn't have the completeness that the New York Times had nor the government twist that the Wall Street Journal had. The Star Tribune covered the issue of the buyout with a very brief and summarized piece that didn't get into too much detail. It was basically a nuts and bolts type of coverage...here are the issues and here is what the Fed and Reserve said they'll do about it.