A too-savvy take and flawed assumptions undermine some interesting reporting
To the Journal, Romney’s summer lull allowed Obama to “define the Republican candidate on its terms.” Never mind that he had already defined himself in the primaries.
While it’s fun to get down into the weeds to see how the politicos think, journalists have to step back to look at the bigger picture. The machinations matter much, much less than the big stuff.
‘See you on the other side’ - Meet Jessica Lum, a terminally ill 25-year-old who chose to spend what little time she had practicing journalism
#Realtalk: This is the best moment to be in journalism - The old stuff isn’t coming back, but that’s okay
Streams of consciousness - Millennials expect a steady diet of quick-hit, social-media-mediated bits and bytes. What does that mean for journalism?
Sticking with the truth - How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism
An ink-stained stretch - Can Aaron Kushner save the Orange County Register—and the newspaper industry?
Obama’s war on leaks undermines investigative journalism
“[T]he most militant I have seen since the Nixon administration”
‘It was approved at the highest levels— and I mean the highest’
Holder OK’d search warrant for Fox News reporter’s private emails, official says
If cable is dying, why is it still making so much money?
The story behind one of the best business models in the country
What TVGuide.com watchlist data reveals about the season’s new dramas
“What was once genre is now the Zeitgeist”
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
Uptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for a neighborhood in New Orleans
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
I agree that the wsj *headline* premise is that it was Romney's to let slip away. but IMHO the article itself focuses on how message and swing states were lost by pulling candidate and aides into fund-raising vs. campaigning.
if anything, my biggest gripe with the article is that it didn't back up the contention that Obama had or spent more. they seem within $75M of what candidate+party+PACs spent respectively; is a10% differential really that significant?
~rich
#1 Posted by rich bibbins, CJR on Thu 8 Nov 2012 at 01:36 PM
The entire Republican base are such sunny-day Patriots. They hate the shit out of America if they learn what we actually believe. Considering their base of old fat white men are going to die soon, I wonder if I'll ever see a Republican President again. Romney might have been a suitable President, but with a conservative win comes the backwards social issues. Anti-science, Anti-charity, antiquated rape-apologists. The Republicans deserved to lose. Because they're wrong about our country. Now what do they expect the President to do for them? Liberals are too right-wing for me, I hope he goes all out.
#2 Posted by Regicide Red, CJR on Thu 8 Nov 2012 at 06:09 PM
Of all the articles I've read about the election, I must say, this is one of the best. Well done!
#3 Posted by mj, CJR on Thu 8 Nov 2012 at 11:27 PM
Good article along the same vein here:
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file/264855/
"Outside the conservative media, the narrative was completely different. Its driving force was Nate Silver, whose performance forecasting Election '08 gave him credibility as he daily explained why his model showed that President Obama enjoyed a very good chance of being reelected. Other experts echoed his findings. Readers of The New York Times, The Atlantic, and other "mainstream media" sites besides knew the expert predictions, which have been largely borne out. The conclusions of experts are not sacrosanct. But Silver's expertise was always a better bet than relying on ideological hacks like Morris or the anecdotal impressions of Noonan.
Sure, Silver could've wound up wrong. But people who rejected the possibility of his being right? They were operating at a self-imposed information disadvantage...
If you're a rank-and-file conservative, you're probably ready to acknowledge that ideologically friendly media didn't accurately inform you about Election 2012. Some pundits engaged in wishful thinking; others feigned confidence in hopes that it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy; still others decided it was smart to keep telling right-leaning audiences what they wanted to hear.
But guess what?
You haven't just been misinformed about the horse race. Since the very beginning of the election cycle, conservative media has been failing you. With a few exceptions, they haven't tried to rigorously tell you the truth, or even to bring you intellectually honest opinion. What they've done instead helps to explain why the right failed to triumph in a very winnable election.
Why do you keep putting up with it?"
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 9 Nov 2012 at 03:12 AM
The Republican Party lost because they are out of touch. Pure and simple. I used to be a staunch republican until the Bush debacle. Now I'm an Independent. I voted for Obama both times. Until the GOP get their act together and learn to separate church and state, they can kiss my 59 year old, white male, vote good bye!
#5 Posted by Makumazahn77, CJR on Fri 9 Nov 2012 at 09:02 AM
Geez, the popular election results were 50% Obama, 48% Romney. Bush did better than that in his re-election race against Kerry. The House of Representatives, supposedly so hated, returns with its Tea Party cohort intact - the GOP lost a grand total, it looks like, of seven seats. The Democrats did perform spectacularly well in Senate races, but that's the only area where they had a really great night. The GOP has apparently picked up one or two more governorships, resulting in at least a 30-20 advantage.
Chittum's economic stats are impressive, but in an election this close, almost any factor can be cited as the reason a candidate won or lost.
#6 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 9 Nov 2012 at 01:07 PM
Tight election, Mark, but they're still counting West Coast votes and it's 51-48 now (rounding up). Obama's win is slightly bigger than Bush's, fwiw.
As far as the House, that's due to gerrymandering. Dem candidates got 600,000 more votes than Republicans so far.
Governors are indeed GOP dominated.
#7 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 9 Nov 2012 at 02:32 PM
Ryan, your points are taken, but I'll stick by my summary statement. It was too close an election for journalists to draw large conclusions from - but writers gotta write. A 600,000 vote overall edge in House races in a 100-million+plus election strikes me as a virtual tie.
#8 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 9 Nov 2012 at 05:15 PM
If anybody cared to look, over the weekend before Tuesday, there were huge lines of voters waiting 6, 7 hours. Not usual, that, and it must be significant.
It is. A lot of people were incandescently angry about Republican vote fraud, women hating, racism and being disrespected by the 53%.
They might not have flooded out to vote against a tax break for the 1% but they did pour out to ensure that nobody stole their vote.
#9 Posted by Harry Eagar, CJR on Mon 12 Nov 2012 at 05:55 PM