Media Coverage

Wow. Thanks to some new folks, I got a new record number of comments. That some seem not to think too highly of my cognitive abilities is irrelevant. Most of my real work focuses on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason--particularly the so-called Metaphysical Deduction--so if you really want to get after my "arguments," my book should be out (late Summer? early Fall?). Of course everyone should a) buy several copies b) tell every library he or she visits physically or electronically to buy several copies and c) tell every bookstore he or she visits physically or electronically to offer it. Personally, I think I should get on Oprah; should I hold my breath for her to put me on her show, discussing Necessity and Possibility: The Logical Structure of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason?

I use the word "tortuous" in it, by the way.

In any case, the stuff I write here is simply amateur hour. I'm not up to the rigorous standards of some of my readers, but they haven't taken me up on my invitation to guest blog.

The latest entry, which was about Ryan Lizza, Rush Limbaugh, and Jeremiah Wright's commitment to Islam, didn't seem to draw much reaction. Wright himself did, however, so I thought I'd bring out from the comments an issue, and hear what folks have to say.

At the Project for Excellence in Journalism (not to be confused with the "Excellence in Broadcasting Network"), an empirical media study found that the Wright-Obama story received in the week examined 42% of the coverage, relative to Clinton's 41%. These numbers sound more precise than they probably deserve to, so I'm willing to call it a tie at 40%.

A bit of the piece summarizes the coverage this way:

As the primary voting has slowed, the media have focused on a number of Democratic campaign controversies—from Clinton’s erroneous recollection about dodging snipers in Bosnia to Obama’s remarks about economically disadvantaged Americans being “bitter.” But none have had the staying power of the Wright flap. In the period from March 17 through May 4, the Wright-Obama story line made up 17%, or one out of six, of all the campaign stories studied. And last week saw the biggest spike yet in that coverage.

There were significant policy issues at play in last week’s Democratic campaign leading up to the May 6 primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. Clinton and Obama sparred over how to handle Iran and the proposed gas-tax holiday. The issue of gas prices accounted for the second-biggest category of campaign stories last week at 7%. And the next biggest chunk of campaign coverage, at 5%, was Indiana superdelegate and former Democratic National Committee chair Joe Andrew switching his support from Clinton to Obama.

But even after combining the gas and the Andrew coverage, that is less than one-third of the attention paid last week to Wright.

This sounds a bit weird to me. I'm willing to grant that the connections between Wright and Obama deserve to be looked at, and I'm willing to listen to the criticisms of Wright that have been put forth, as well as the analysis of what this implies about Obama. That's fair: Obama himself agreed that this was a legitimate political issue.

But is it the only issue? Clinton is running for President, as is Obama. Are there other things to examine than the Wright-Obama connection? Admittedly, the policy differences between the two are pretty minor, but there are distinctions.

Apparently, others view it differently. I think there's lots to talk about other than Wright, without that implying that the Wright issue not be examined. (It would be nice, as well, if a bit more of what had been said in those scary awful sermons was brought into the discussion; this was one of the advantages of Bill Moyers's interview with Wright, but wasn't the model generally followed. The simple question is this: given either the views found in Ezekiel in the Hebrew Bible, or Luke in the sequel, consider some of the actions of the United States and its citizens. Does God bless all of them? None of them? Some of them?)

So I'll leave it as an open question: is this an appropriate way to proportion the media coverage of Wright, of Obama, of Wright and Obama, and of Clinton? (And for those who are so inspired, the invitation to guest blog remains open.)