Home CT Elections: Local, State & Federal CT Maps Links Help About CT Research CT History

!!! Connecticut Local Politics has moved! Please go to http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net for new content!

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Up All Night

I just finished listening to a BBC news program called Up All Night. Tonight's broadcast was largely devoted to covering our Senate race. During the primary I noticed that national coverage of the race often didn't reflect what I saw happening locally. With that in mind I was interested to hear how the BBC would present both the Senate race and Connecticut in general.

Their correspondent Rhod Sharp went around to various locations in Connecticut asking people about whom they were voting for and why. Sharp's travels took him to Sikorsky, a rally for union SEIU32BJ, Mayor Mike's bar in Hartford, and on the front lines of the lawn sign wars. He also spoke with both Ned and Joe about what the race meant to Connecticut and the nation.

The show was pretty comprehensive, but I wasn't learning anything new about the race. Towards the end of the program I realized why. Mr. Sharp was presenting the Senate race from the ground. He was having the same conversations on the air that we're all having amongst ourselves right now. I think listeners came away with an accurate portrait of what's going on in Connecticut, and why this race happened.

National media has covered this race extensively, but most of the time I feel like they missed the mark. The GQ piece is a notable exception. I'd love to hear some other opinions on this. What's your take on how the national (and international) media has portrayed this Senate race and Connecticut?

Full Disclosure: I heard about the program in advance because the producers were interested in talking to bloggers about the race. We got bumped, but I think the field pieces were much better. CTLP is mentioned on the air however, as is Don Pesci's blog.

3 Comments:

Blogger Genghis Conn said...

International media does seem very interested in this race. Turfgrrl and I met with about two dozen foreign journalists on a press tour down in New London, and they're very curious about the Lamont-Lieberman race. They're also interested in the possible takeover of the House and/or Senate by the Dems, but this race holds their interest. It might be the afterglow of this summer's coverage, but it might also be because international media is very interested in how Americans feel about the Iraq War.

10/29/2006 11:25:00 PM  
Blogger Genghis Conn said...

By the way, the title of this thread in no way makes me think of Gilbert Gottfried.

10/29/2006 11:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Shadow said...

The national media (Chris Matthews in particular) did a good job covering the primary, but they took that disingenuous Quinnepiac Poll as an excuse to be lazy and not cover the race; Chris Jansing's piece last week was one of the most pathetic excuses for political journalism I have seen in my life.

The new Rasmussen numbers show the race much closer, and hopefully someone will whisper these results into Matthews' and the rest of the MSM's ear, so they can start doing some real coverage again like they did before the primary. It's always so important to have these reporters on the ground and talking to voters; Chris Matthews, after talking to enough CT voters, was able to report the truth live on air in the days before the primary, that despite the most recent poll and conventional wisdom showing Lieberman winning, the vast majority of the energy on the ground was behind Lamont. I'd rather have accurate political reporting than lazy, disconnected fluff pieces about the incumbent going to win in a "knockout", with not a single opposing viewpoint voiced or even alluded to. That's not journalism.

10/30/2006 09:25:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home