http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/politics/16elect.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/14/hours-polls-close-gloves-come-delaware/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/christine-odonnell-upsets-mike.html
All three articles I read have to do with Christine O'Donnell's win over Mike Castle in the Delaware Senate Primary. Each article makes a point of highlighting the fact that the win was an upset. Along with this each article brings up the fact that O'Donnell was backed by the Tea Party.
-The NY Times brings in the percentages of votes won by O'Donnell and includes an interview with O'Donnell.
-Fox News talks about how O'Donnell stood her ground and how this was an important win for the Tea Party.
-The Washington Post focuses on how although this was a big upset and was a big win for the tea party there were also big political battles in New York and New Hampshire.
Although there are these small differences, with small twists from bias, I believe that each source keeps their stories essentially identical. In this instance, it can be easy to say whether you support a person or party but there can be little differences in the facts.
It seems interesting that on a local election, the stories come out agreeing. Perhaps because this may be seen as a story that wouldn't get as much media attention as say, a presidential election, newscasters do not feel the need to distort a story. I would assume that if this was a presidential election, the stories would be much more conflicting. This would most likely be because the media would have to compete for attention for coverage of such an important election.
ReplyDeleteGood point by point analysis Andy. And, just so you know, although Castle is an unusual name we are not related :0)
ReplyDeleteThat is pretty interesting how all the stories, especially about an election, stayed somewhat consistent.
ReplyDelete