Reader Comment

Besides our first comment from Jack in the previous post, VOA got an e-mail from a K.Kelly. Here it is:

"Do a Google news search and compare how many times the internet news media, including Voice of America, uses the term "Clinton ATTACKS...Obama" verses "Obama ATTACKS...Clinton." I think you will find the analysis startling. There are a lot more references to "Clinton ATTACKS Obama" than "Obama ATTACKS Clinton." Instead Obama "swipes," "criticizes," "says," "suggests," and "warns," etc. There is a big difference between ATTACK and SWIPES, CRITICIZES, SAYS, SUGGESTS and WARNS. ATTACK has a negative connotation. Is Voice of America biased against the Clinton campaign?

K. Kelly"

While not specifically addressed to this blog, I thought I would take, er a "swipe" at it. :-)

I would go along with the idea that the media in the United States (from which VOA draws much of its news) has generally been less critical of Sen. Obama than Sen. Clinton. This is not only my view but you can read this throughout the media itself.

But one has to admit that the Clinton campaign, according to analysts, has been less than adroit in pursuing the nomination. They gambled everything on a strategy of inevitability and wrapping up the nomination by Super Tuesday back during the first week of February. It failed. The press coverage reflects this as well.

But as I said in my earlier posts, I sense this is going to change and change soon. And again, this is not just my idea; you can read this all over the American press. The press, if I can aggregate what I see, realizes that it has been perhaps too ga-ga over Sen. Obama, and now that he is a front runner, is beginning to focus on what exactly he means by "change". His plans are beginning to be examined, his voting record is likely to be parsed.

I think Sen. Clinton has raised a legitimate question in asking whether Sen. Obama is prepared to assume the awesome burden of the Oval Office. He has spent four years in the Senate, and eight years before that as a state legislator. About half of his time in the Senate has been spent running for president. In his defense, men have been elected with far less national experience than he has as we have tended to elect state governors in past contests.

So given all this, I think the press coverage reflects the states of the two campaigns. And for my money, "attack" is not such a dirty word. That is what candidates do all the time, and frankly, in a democracy, they should. To me, "attack" does not have such a negative connotation but I will concede the point that words matter (where have we heard this before?).

VOA mirrors the national press coverage as we strive to give our listeners and the visitors to our website what the country's media is saying, and that terminology inevitably creeps into our own coverage. Perhaps we should be more careful but while I think we try to be as objective as we can, we should not go out of our way to "make up" for what the US press is saying. It is always going to be a judgment call for us as to how people and things are described. We'll always look at that.

But I do sense that a change may be ahead on the press coverage of both candidates. However, be prepared that if Sen. Clinton loses both contests on Tuesday night, the coverage and adjectives used to describe her and her campaign are going to be painful for her supporters.

Thanks for the note and I hope you keep getting your campaign info from us.