A Vote for Newspaper Blogging

Doing a quick check on how soome major papers are handling the breaking news in the Hillary Clinton event (text of her speech, and it’s a damned good one, is here). As of 1:10 p.m. EDT, after the event had been under way for at least a few minutes:

–L.A. Times: Lame and badly edited Associated Press set-up story on the event.

New York Times: Topping a boilerplate piece on the campaign (which includes the novelistic statement, “Mr. Obama stayed away [from the event] because he understood this was her moment”) with fresh developments.

Washington Post: Doing on-the-fly rewrites in much the same style as the Times, but feels fresher.

Chicago Tribune: Main coverage is in the paper’s The Swamp political blog. By far the best of the bunch. I like that they skipped the standard bylined story approach and just went with the blogger. The piece has a much more immediate feel, and you don’t really need the back story.

Technorati Tags: , ,

5 Comments

Filed under Current Affairs

5 Responses to A Vote for Newspaper Blogging

  1. Dr Ralph

    It was a damned good speech. I was a Hillary supporter in the Texas precinct caususes, finally drifting over to the Obama camp when things became inevitable, and this reminded me why I supported her early on.
    Don’t know what will finally happen with the VP selection, but this speech (in my humble opinion) made it much harder *not* to give her the nod.

  2. jb

    A brilliant speaker, she only got better as the campaign went on. This one was great. She got 18 million votes, she’s a great public servant…scrappy too. It only seems natural to have her on the ticket. The Democrats should go for it.

  3. Eamon

    Although it appears I am in the minority here on this point, the speech was the best to be expected from Hillary, as opposed to damn good. And I think those who like Hillary don’t want to accept the fact that there is a huge group that dislikes her immensely. I don’t think she would help the ticket overall … and if they won she would most likely claim it as her own victory instead of Obama’s. She said during one of the primaries, ‘Winning. Winning. Winning, that’s my measure of success — winning.
    ‘http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/politics&id=5997782
    To me her campaign has been more about her desire to win more than anything else. Again, I know I am in the minority here but that’s my two cents.

  4. Eamon

    The id for the above article is not ! but 5997782

  5. Dan

    That “18 million people voted for me” line is a good one, though am I the only one who notices 1) that it went up 1 million over the last week (who knew there were that many voters in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana), 2) that Obama also won that many votes or more 3) that it’s an apples and oranges comparison due to the caucus process so many states use and 4) that in any case, what does it have to do with the price of bananas? This is like a sprinter saying, hey, I was second in a photo finish — hand over the gold.
    All that having been said, it would be a huge boost to Obama’s chances if she is really on board. It’s disturbing to hear her supporters say they’re going to sit out the election. If eight years of Bush can’t cure you of that kind of pique, nothing can.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *