CNN
CNN clearly wants to wow viewers with the whiz-bang: the “data wall,” the “election matrix,” the “sentiment analysis” of the “Twittersphere,” the exit poll 3-D doodads that from time to time crowd Ali Velshi out of the shot entirely. But what I am watching—really, watching—is Wolf Blitzer. Wandering the set. With pen and notepad. (A human foil, sort of, for all the high-tech stuff).
Early in the evening, Blitzer was on it. Ordering us to “stand by.” Announcing “we’re about to make projections,” and then making those projections. Like this one, at 8 p.m.:
“CNN projects that the Democratic candidate, Chris Coons, will be the next U.S. Senator from the state of Delaware, beating Christine O’Donnell. Everyone remembers Christine O’Donnell, the candidate who said she was not a witch. She is not going to be a United States senator, at least for now, either.
Zing!
Soon after 9 p.m., as Florida’s newest senator, Republican Marco Rubio, finished his victory speech, Blitzer weighed in effusively, calling Rubio “a very attractive and impressive young man who’s got a huge future.” (A personal projection?)
Also attractive to Blitzer: CNN’s Ali Velshi, as he fought to remain visible amid the floating exit poll data presented in colorful Lego-like stacks (the “little chiclets,” as Velshi called them). “I can’t even get behind that because it’s so big,” Velshi protested at one point, sidestepping a tall mound of “chiclets” apparently depicting that “89% of respondents say that the economy is not so good or poor.”
“You look good behind those walls,” Blitzer reassured Velshi, soon thereafter adding, “Stand by.”
Of Nikki Haley’s gubernatorial victory in South Carolina, Blitzer informed viewers that “her parents are Indians from India.”
Here’s Blitzer talking about Pennsylvania, just after 11p.m.: “It looks like this one will have to be decided the old-fashioned way, by the actual votes being counted.”
And, Blitzer on CNN’s “sentiment analysis” (read: reading tweets): “Twitter! What can we learn from the latest tweets that have been sent out?” We can learn, as John King explained at one point, after “a look at the conversation in the Twittersphere,” that “in “Rand Paul’s home state of Kentucky, 28%, a plurality, of the tweets about the Tea Party today were negative.” Huh.
Here’s another “sentiment” I found “in the Twittersphere:”
Election Night: Between Spitzer, Gergen & Carville, the CNN panel looks like the Cantina Scene from Star Wars
- Liz Cox Barrett
MSNBC and Fox News
So, my election night was spent flicking between MSNBC and Fox News; my surf along the Republican wave guided by the blustery Keith Olbermann and his panel of MSNBC big names for some returns, and by Fox’s Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier for others. As you might expect, it was like dinner with the Montagues and Capulets; two households alike in indignity with very different takes on the dishes being served.
Interestingly, it was MSNBC that proved the more exciting broadcast, if also the more abrasive and combative. With a navy blue theme for its well-produced graphics, and Chuck Todd sliding through maps and figures on what appeared to be an oversized (and uncooperative) iPad, MSNBC populated its panel with the channel’s popular prime timers and contributors: Olbermann in the middle, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow on either side, Eugene Robinson in the mix, and Lawrence O’Donnell on the end—“because your show is the latest.” (Ed Schultz was on duty in Nevada.) Unsurprisingly, everything came with a “Dems are doing better than expected spin,” and plenty of snark for some of the more colorful Republican candidates—Olbermann cut to Christine O’Donnell’s concession speech with a short, “Get your popcorn.” Was not the only snarky Olbermann comment of the evening, but to be fair, it was pretty entertaining. Pass the butter.
You missed Diane Sawyer's much-hyped coverage on ABC. But you did not miss much; it was terrible.
#1 Posted by Stephen G. Esrati, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 10:14 AM
Chris Wallace may have 'cooed', as Joel's ears would have it, that 'this may be the biggest pickup since 1948', but Wallace was merely prophetically correct. This was the biggest swing since that year. Another (liberal) pundit somewhere in the blogosphere this morning noted that it was the biggest swing in an off-year election since 1938. I don't know if he was cooing when he wrote that, though.
#2 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 12:19 PM
Joel Meares's "analysis" should be used in journalism classes as an example of why the national media is hemmoraging readers/viewers.
It's nothing more than a snarky and self-important collection of subjective opinions, passed off as "reporting." Mr. Meares doesn't like Republicans. He likes Democrats. So he preferred the coverage on MSNBC.
Fine. That's his right. But to try and claim that a panel of five--with EUGENE ROBINSON as the most conservative (and civil) member--has an ounce of balance is demonstrably absurd.
Fortunately, the TV viewers of America (by approximately 3 to 1) do not share his view.
#3 Posted by Karen, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 01:25 PM
This commentary is unbelievable. It clearly demonstrates why the public is running away from the so-called main stream media, of which I was a part for 40 years. Chris Matthews' childish behavior toward Michelle Bachman was the low-point of the night. It was obvious to the viewer that she couldn't hear his questions, but he went on with his classless "hypnotic" comments, etc. Then he capped it off by denying his well-know "tingle" comment and followed it up with calling her a moron when the call ended. Meanwhile, he and Olbermann and Maddow sat there giggling like junior highers.
#4 Posted by Hal Sanders, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 02:12 PM
Heard Wolf Blitzer speak at an industry event a couple years ago. Don't let anything about him fool you. He is massively and I mean massively boarding.
JJZ
#5 Posted by Johnny 1959, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 04:29 PM
I find it surprising and offensive that CJR would characterize a woman as "shreiking" when she merely asked an obviously spontaneous, unscripted question. I suppose we should be grateful that this shoddy piece contains no reference to women who were "hysterical" over the outcome or "cried" about the results.
Oh, you sexist.
#6 Posted by Mandy, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 04:33 PM
Last night I figured out why MSNBC has such low ratings. I watched the commentary for about 15 minutes and was shocked. The pure denial, conceit, and condescension of the panel was nauseating. While their guests spoke, the panel would talk under their breaths and deride the speaker. It was like watching a bunch of class clowns in high school making fun of the elected class representatives.
It honestly reminded me of watching Gore lose debates because of his loud breathing and sighs.
The Professional Left really deserves better representation than the unprofessional crew at MSNBC.
#7 Posted by Charlie, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 04:44 PM
Like some of the others here, I too, as a former journalist, was appalled at the lack of class and professionalism shown by the MSNBC talkers last night. They were constantly interrupting and hounding guests. When interviews were done, they made demeaning, nasty cracks about the guests they didn't like. The fact that anyone at CJR regards these antics as anything to be admired speaks volumes about the state of "journalism" there.
#8 Posted by frank, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 07:05 PM
Is this really the best CJR could come up with? I actually only watched MSNBC and thought their coverage pathetic. Check out this on The Daily Beast, hardly a right-wing outlet: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-03/election-media-coverage-video-of-msnbcs-apocalyptic-night/
#9 Posted by Frank Wilson, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 09:29 PM
The nearly all "WHITE" panel was a bunch of clowns. The laughter and snickering was so unprofessional. And that interview with Bachmann and Matthews was outrageous. No wonder MSNBC is last in the ratings. Jeez
#10 Posted by Xfiler93, CJR on Wed 3 Nov 2010 at 10:46 PM
Maybe they figured that they were there to report and analyze election results as opposed to having a pajama party where they sneer at the loser kids.
#11 Posted by Pablo, CJR on Thu 4 Nov 2010 at 01:01 AM
BTW, if anyone is interested, Stu Bykofsky at Philly.com actually endured monitoring 'O'Reilly' vs. 'Countdown' in the week prior to the elections, Oct. 25-29. He found what a lot of lazy journalists who obsess about Fox News found, if they actually got around to doing a compare-and-contrast. O'Reilly, for all his blustery style, did have a considerable number of guests with opposing 'Left' viewpoints on his program. Olbermann had none, zero. Olbermann used phrases like 'theocracy for white males' (wow, scary) but, like a lot of rather ridiculous white males who use language like this, had 22 guests of which only four were female. This on the 'liberal' channel! O'Reilly did better in that department, too.
This is why it is so difficult to take critics of Fox News so seriously. At least Fox News is not tied to an ostensibly non-partisan network. MSNBC shares staff and resources with NBC News, thus tainting the latter. CJR staffers who get snarky about Fox News for its biases have a lot more to work with over at MSNBC, but they don't. Gee, I can't imagine why.
#12 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 4 Nov 2010 at 12:38 PM