News Coverage of Racial Minority Candidates and Politicians

This section could not have come at a better time, just as election season is finally closing. Stephanie Greco Larson opens the chapter discussing how news reporters choose to cover candiates and the results from their decisions. She claims that "the focus is one the candidates as personalities, rather than potential leaders with issue agendas, ideologies and party identifications" (196). She also mentions the truth of the more popular you are, the better coverage you will get. In this election 9and every election), the majority of the attention went to Obama and McCain. Larson claims that the lack of attention to any other delegates not in the Democratic or Republican party can "doom their campagins by preventing them from getting enough support to change their poll results and subsequently earn more coverage. Essentially, candiates argue that by not giving them coverage, the mediap prevent them from suceeding. Reporters agree that candidates who do not do well in polls are not viable enough to cover" (196). Media coverage of the candiates is important, that is the biggest way the parties get their message out and obviously, how sad would this election have been without SNL's weekly coverage of news from the trail? :) Larson also goes on to say that once a candidate is elected, its still important that the media continues to cover them, "they are in effort running a permanent campaign in which they are selling themselves and their ideas to the public, other politicians and the press" (197). So clearly, media coverage is vital to politicians but sometimes news reporters spin on the politicians can get them into trouble.

Larson then goes on to explore the coverage of black candidates in the media. She mentioned the typical issues, such as the fact that white candidates or politicans tend to get more coverage, over a black opponets but only when whites were running against whites. If there was a white candidate and a black candidate, there was no change in amount of coverage. There is also the issue mentioned that even when a black candidate is elected, they do not feel that the media takes them as seriously as white politicians. Larson then mentions an issue that was explored in detail during this election season, stating that "when campaigns are biracical, debate about ideology shifts to accusations of racism or reverse discrimination. Compaints also come from white candidates who say that the press applies a double standard that favors black candidates. The logic behind this allegation is that reporters do not want to appear racist so they resist critisizing blacks" (206). Is that true? Did Obama not get critisized for anything because he is African American? Or was he not as "bust-able" as Sarah Palin was?

She concludes by discussing the use of stereotypes in news coverage, even of politicians. She lists the stereotypes as dishonest and immoral(which I think is a stereotype of most politicans), dangerous and threatning (one particular stereotype used a great deal by some extreme conservatives in this election), and novel and different, making them the exception, not the norm.

As I read through this article, so many moments of "Decision 2008" ran through my mind. We made history by electing the first African American president in the United States. All through the campaign, the issue of race was so heavily embeded in the news coverage that sometimes it was hard to get past that and simply look at the issues Obama stands for. We may have come a long way since the days of slavery, but we would be stupid to say America is completely beyond its racist paths. Some serious racism came out through the election process, even one attempt at assisination. I think that so many people got so wrapped up in Obama being a black man and being in favor or opposed to it that they forgot to examine the issues. Since he was a front runner in this election, naturally news coverage of him and his family was at a great high, matching the coverage of his opponet, Senator John McCain. While I don't know of any news stations that held biases toward either candidate, the attitudes expressed by this chapter were definitely present within the people of America during this whole process. Larson concludes with a statement that I hope and pray is not true for our new President, whether we agree with him or not: "Even after they are elected, blacks are more likely to be presented as outsiders, lacking independance and power" (210). Obama did the camaign thing, he won the votes of America to hold the most powerful position in the country, but will he still be treated as an outsider, just because of the color of his skin? Is this going to be the change we've been waiting for, or is it going to reinforce some extreme racists attitudes contained in the country?

All through election season, my friends and I watched SNL to see what new thing Tina Fey would come up with or watch a spoof of the latest debate. On November 3, 2008, one night before the election, SNL held a Presidential Bash. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin appeared on the show, as well as countless parodies of their campaign trail. They also had both appeared on the show during the regular season. Barack Obama was not a guest throughout the weeks leading up, nor at the Bash. While there were a couple skits in which he was portrayed, there were a great deal fewer than any with McCain or Palin. Was SNL doing exactly what Larson talked about in this chapter, not giving as much coverage to the black candidate as they did to the white? Were they avoiding Obama as much as possible, as to not appear racist by poking fun at him and instead focused entirely on the Mavericks? There was even more spoofs about Obama's running mate, Joe Biden. that there was of our new President. Why? Its certainly something to think about.

Check out the link below, there are a bunch of skits listed...check them out for yourself!
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/categories/newest/p/2/