This morning I read the NY Times headline: "Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, in Own Ways, Show Pull at New Hampshire Convention"
The New York Times article seemed to me perfectly fair and accurate. In some ways it was better than live reality, but it was different. The article put the speeches by H. Clinton and Sanders into a context and bigger and longer narrative: the growth of Sanders' campaign, the multiple endorsements for Clinton by NH leaders, the context that the limited number of Democratic debates, for which Debbie Wasserman Shultz is credited/blamed, was the product of intentional rigging things for Clinton's benefit, and the context mentioned in the headline, that Clinton and Sanders had "pull", presumably meaning significant bodies of supporters in the audience.
The Times' article had a single photo, one of the supporters outside holding Clinton signs.
The article is not wrong, and indeed it was helpful. But the live reality experience showed context, but a different one. It showed the context of the long Saturday event being part of state Democratic showcase. There was recognition of Democratic state representatives, past and present. The Democratic Congresswomen got speaking slots. The Governor got a speaking slot. There was a presentation by the Human Rights Coalition and awards given. In live reality, the presidential candidates were the highlights of a long state party building event with multiple down-ballot speakers
And then the speeches by the presidential candidates took place on their own. The announcer voice announces the candidate, out he or she comes, they speak, the crowd yells, and off they walk. Each speech was its own thing. From my point of view the bigger narrative context was important, but different from the NY Times' context. My context was:
***Bernie Sanders did another iteration of his strong progressive angry talk.
***Hillary Clinton changed and upped her game. This speech showed strength and assertiveness, a liberal match for Trump, very different from the two "listening tour" events I had seen, where she presented more like a state senator on a fact-finding mission than a candidate for top leadership.
***O'Malley and Chafee were soldiering on in hopeless campaigns, good sports.
***The area outside the arena had maybe a thousand demonstrators, people from the O'Malley, Clinton, and Sanders campaigns. There was a shouting and chanting battle between the various campaigns, a reality not shown in the single closeup photo of the Clinton supporter holding the sign.
Bottom line: a person who reads the NY Times and then watches the speeches on CSPAN gets a reasonable and fair and balanced understanding of the event, gets it quicker, gets it without listening to down-ballot speakers, and gets it in the comfort of their home. But it is a different experience than the one I had, in ways that are probably unimportant.
The New York Times article seemed to me perfectly fair and accurate. In some ways it was better than live reality, but it was different. The article put the speeches by H. Clinton and Sanders into a context and bigger and longer narrative: the growth of Sanders' campaign, the multiple endorsements for Clinton by NH leaders, the context that the limited number of Democratic debates, for which Debbie Wasserman Shultz is credited/blamed, was the product of intentional rigging things for Clinton's benefit, and the context mentioned in the headline, that Clinton and Sanders had "pull", presumably meaning significant bodies of supporters in the audience.
The Times' article had a single photo, one of the supporters outside holding Clinton signs.
The article is not wrong, and indeed it was helpful. But the live reality experience showed context, but a different one. It showed the context of the long Saturday event being part of state Democratic showcase. There was recognition of Democratic state representatives, past and present. The Democratic Congresswomen got speaking slots. The Governor got a speaking slot. There was a presentation by the Human Rights Coalition and awards given. In live reality, the presidential candidates were the highlights of a long state party building event with multiple down-ballot speakers
And then the speeches by the presidential candidates took place on their own. The announcer voice announces the candidate, out he or she comes, they speak, the crowd yells, and off they walk. Each speech was its own thing. From my point of view the bigger narrative context was important, but different from the NY Times' context. My context was:
***Bernie Sanders did another iteration of his strong progressive angry talk.
***Hillary Clinton changed and upped her game. This speech showed strength and assertiveness, a liberal match for Trump, very different from the two "listening tour" events I had seen, where she presented more like a state senator on a fact-finding mission than a candidate for top leadership.
***O'Malley and Chafee were soldiering on in hopeless campaigns, good sports.
***The area outside the arena had maybe a thousand demonstrators, people from the O'Malley, Clinton, and Sanders campaigns. There was a shouting and chanting battle between the various campaigns, a reality not shown in the single closeup photo of the Clinton supporter holding the sign.
Bottom line: a person who reads the NY Times and then watches the speeches on CSPAN gets a reasonable and fair and balanced understanding of the event, gets it quicker, gets it without listening to down-ballot speakers, and gets it in the comfort of their home. But it is a different experience than the one I had, in ways that are probably unimportant.
No comments:
Post a Comment