Super Tuesday: Write-ups 2…
Newsday’s Verne Gay
A split decision!
No massive screw-ups. (No noticeable screw-ups of any sort). Solid coverage. Good graphics. Competent field reporting. Amazingly detailed and informed commentary. Lower thirds…well, a little more on that in a bit.
All in all, a pretty good night of TV coverage.
But during an historic evening, personalities - network personalities - tend to emerge, stripped of flackery or spin, they show their true colors. Last night wasn’t about “who was first” but “who was most watchable,” which is a whole different metric. So let’s just go network by network:
The Politico’s Michael Calderone…
Throughout the night, network personalities poked at huge iPhone-like touch screens and CNN’s magic wall. The sheer amount of data from 24 states made things a bit claustrophobic-at times there were two different sets of results, along with a countdown clock when the polls close, running on the bottom and side of the screen, boxing out the pundit.
Of course, doling out a lot of numbers was the challenge in covering Super Tuesday — CBS’s Katie Couric said one needed a “Ph.D. in calculus” to understand the Democratic delegate count. Meanwhile, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd and new Fox News contributor Karl Rove seemed to be always tabulating something.
I liked the Newsday article. Especially the following comment:
Fox’s ill-disguised pro-Romney bias was equally grotesque
How can he say such a thing about the “Fair and Balanced” channel?
Comment by elmonica — February 6, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
I was keeping track of network projections and I’m fairly certain FOX called Tennessee for McCain before doubling back and calling it for Huckabee. Also Fox had McCain at single digits in Alabama for several hours before showing more accurate totals later on. Any insight on this?
Comment by DanOregon — February 6, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
Well, Dan… I only had one eye watching FNC last night (the other was working on balancing my check book, a far more daunting task) but I noticed some strange numbers soon. However, after really looking at it, and thinking about it, the reason (I believe) was because they were calling races based on exit polling, while presenting the actually tallies at the same time. Sometimes this meant someone who was going to win the state got the little check mark and delegates… while their numbers were lower than an opponents. All in all, a bit confusing if you ask me.
Elmo… I didn’t notice any bias, and am not a Romney fan (actually, I don’t have a horse in the race yet). I’m always a little leery when someone says something so bold as what this guy said, but gives no evidence. What makes him think there was bias? Tone? Stories reported? The guests? Something said in an interview?
Sometimes I think projection allows people (especially critics) the ability to see what they want to see… not what’s actually there. But hey, I don’t need to tell you this! You could find bias in a bowl of alphabet soup… so I’m sure you know all about projection.
Comment by ImNotBlue — February 7, 2008 @ 12:28 am