Not Enough Exposure, now it's Too Much Exposure
Last night I heard Chris Matthews discussing with a guest whether or not President Obama was overly exposing himself by attending all those talk shows Sunday about his agenda. Now we read about this new poll.
A new NBC/WSJ poll asks whether President Obama is overly exposed lately.
In the poll, 34% say they see and hear Obama too much, 9% say they see/hear him too little, and 54% say it's the right amount.
Among McCain voters, however, 63% say they're seeing too much of the president. That's compared with only 8% of Obama voters who say that.
Among independents, 52% say Obama's exposure is the right amount, versus 40% who say it's too much.
The president appeared on 5 talk shows last Sunday and on the David Letterman show last night. The political pundits are questioning whether it's too much.
Just about 2-3 weeks ago they were pushing the opposite story. Where is Obama on health care?
I sure wish they'd make up their minds.
The President usually gets daily exposure of some sort. Has been that way for years.
It's weird that the meta-issue of exposure is now a topic of conversation. It's a result, I believe of melding the news with commentary.
I have a sniff test: can you picture Walter Cronkite reporting on a story you see in the news today?
If 'yes', then it's news. If 'no' then it's commentary.
Of course, the blogosphere is just as guilty of this blurring. Even Obama commented on that yesterday.
September 22, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
With CNN, MSNBC and Fox leading the 24hour news cycle, and with the blogosphere thrown in, not only is there daily coverage of the president there is daily coverage of those opposing the President's agenda. It is definitely true that with the mix of commentary in the news, the President and his supporters are also attempting to counter those in the media as well as the opposing lobbyists and special interests.
It is also in part that Obama is working to get his message out through all the pipelines that Americans receive their news. When most people turned to the network evening news for their information, one didn't have to turn to David Letterman to reach out to a large segment of the population.
The days of Walter Cronkite one-half of an hour news a day, with a supplement of the daily newspaper, is gone forever. For better and for worse. One could argue that while Walter might ask the straight news questions, there was never enough time to delve into the issue in any complex way.
Given there is plenty to complain about in terms of the quality of news reporting in today's media, there should be as much emphasis on American citizens becoming more sophisticated.
Having a mix of news and commentary is not in and of itself bad. What is bad is when the line between the two cannot be differentiated, as well as when it that line is purposively obfuscated. And then there is the issue that there is element of "commentary" in what one would chose to report on when given 10 or 15 minutes to report world news, or financial news.
And part of an increase in sophistication is the belief that one should try to get all sides on the issues, look to more than one source, and listen to those who having differing views. Too many Americans feel that they being well-informed if they catch the Evening News, or listen to just OReilly or Olberman a couple of times a week.
September 23, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but Walter would actually expect Obama to tell us simply what costs/benefits his healthcare bill would provide for you and me and he'd want to know the exit strategy for Afghanistan.
September 22, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the media forgets is, in today's 24/7 news cycle, I'm betting if some math expert were to calculate it, Obama's 5 visits on one Sunday is less than what presidents back 20-30 years ago did in a years time.
September 23, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, one needs to look at it from a propositional perspective. It also need to be seen as proportional to how much exposure the opponents, taken as one entity, are having in the same amount of time. Especially if one takes into account the commercials, flyers and push polls that are out there. The President is expected to be the spokesperson for the reform, so supporters tend to get less air time and exposure, while the opposition is able to throw out multiple spokespersons/spokesorganizations.
September 23, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is, of course, meant to be "proportional perspective."
September 23, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink