Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

MSM gets YearlyKos basically right

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-05-07 12:13 PM
Original message
MSM gets YearlyKos basically right
MSM gets YearlyKos basically right
by: David
Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:35:07 PM EDT

I haven't got time today to do a Yearly Kos wrap-up; I'll try to get to it in the next couple of days. In the meantime, though, you can read two actually quite good articles by our mainstream media friends. Here's the NYT's Jeff Zeleny, and here is the Globe's woman-on-the-scene, Marcella Bombardieri. The Globe article is particularly good. And kudos to the Globe for sending a reporter out to Chicago to cover it, instead of just relying on wire services.

That said, I'd nitpick just a couple of points in Bombardieri's article. First, this passage

Hillary Clinton, who during the YearlyKos-sponsored debate made a surprisingly spirited defense of taking lobbyists' money, even reversed her plan to skip part of the program in response to being booed.

is not quite accurate. As Bob and I noted in yesterday's posts, the confusion over whether Hillary was going to attend the breakout sessions was largely the fault of the Yearly Kos organizers, who subsequently apologized for it. Second, this quote

"We're really glad they're here, but we don't care that much about what they have to say," said Tom Tucker, a math professor at the University of Rochester who maintains a blog called rochesterturning.com.

struck me as odd, and probably unrepresentative. To the contrary, I think most attendees cared a great deal about what the candidates had to say. A good number (Bob and I included) remain undecided in the presidential sweeps, and were hoping to use the convention as a big part of our decisionmaking process. This was not about having the candidates kneel to kiss the ring of the blogosphere. It was about trying to find out whether the candidates share the values that are important to us.

More:
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8141
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-05-07 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. the two chicago papers were very good.
accurate, page 3 coverage, nicely written, no crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC