Lessons Learned from 2010: The Media Can’t be Shut out

One disturbing trend that I saw in 2010 was the exclusion of certain unfavorable media outlets from campaign events.   The candidates who did it rightfully suffered for it.  Christine O’Donnell shut out Ginger Gibson from press conferences.  Then she complained that her side of important issues didn’t get out from those press conferences in the News Journal.  She should have watched the TV interview doesn’t hack it.  A big O’Donnell event for Veterans was defined in the paper by Chris Coons who did talk to the reporter.  It is fine to call out the press, but excluding them hurts you. Sharon Angle had a 4 point lead and locked the seat up until her staff bullied some TV reporters 3 days before an election.  It fed into the extremist narrative.  She stopped talking with reporters, which was her right.  They found her in the airport and tried to ask questions.  Instead of smiling and saying, I can’t concentrate on your questions running through an airport.  Call my office.   They pushed them away.  11% of voters decided in the last 3 days.  They broke 10 to 1 against her.  She lost narrowly. Joe Miller may still make it by the skin of his teeth.  We shall see. The lesson is simple.  The people are distrustful of the press, but they still need them.  Shutting out the press brings up images that are not favorable in America.  Don’t do it.

4 thoughts on “Lessons Learned from 2010: The Media Can’t be Shut out”

  1. For republicans, the Press is a rainy day friend and for ratings is a formidable enemy, and always necessary!!

  2. Conservatives need to start recruiting outstanding high-school students who are of a conservative bent for journalism school scholarships. These students can be selected from survey and essay results.

    We can’t allow the left to keep expanding their influence in the media. Remember, Stalin said (paraphrase) ‘give me Hollywood, and I’ll control the world.’

    Conservatives, I hate to tell you, but we are at war with the left, and the future of the United States hangs in the balance.

  3. The media is an extremely important and difficult and delicate question.

    When Christine’s PR people first booked her on the sunday morning news shows after the election and then cancelled, this did not keep the news shows from talking about her. She was “on” the shows anyway — without being there to give her side of anything.

    On the other hand, there is a very strong, very widespread expert argument that if you talk to bad journalists you simply give them more opportunity to write bad things about you. So a lot of experts strongly insist that you should never talk to bad journalists, because no matter what you say they will only exploit the opportunity to write negative things about you.

    The average person actually believes that a candidate’s speech was “about” the one part that the news media decides to misrepresent and take out of context. They actually don’t realize that the speech was about something entirely different. If a candidate gives a 40 minute speech on jobs, and someone asks a question about Obama’s birth certificate — which the candidate DODGES — the news media will report that the candidate on Tuesday suggested Obama might have been born in Kenya.

    The main post here is based on the assumption that if you DID include those journalists, they would suddenly report honestly or positively about the candidate.

  4. And of course the average voter will actually think that the candidate’s 40 minute speech was *ONLY* about Obama’s birth certificate, because the news media did not honestly report what the speech was about.

    The question at the end that the candidate dodged will become for the reader the ENTIRE speech, because the journalist did not report the event honestly.

Comments are closed.