The biggest narrative during Barack Obama's world tour was that he was getting too much press attention and that the liberal media was biased toward an Obama coronation.
But being able to pull nearly 300,000 people for a speech by someone who isn't even president yet, IS news. However, each breath covering Obama's itinerary (or other mundane detail that didn't need to be covered) was given with the self-effacing context that maybe the media was paying too much attention to all of this. The subtext was always: "maybe we shouldn't be covering this or at least we should question whether we should be covering this...oh, <hand wrining>, what to do?, what to do?"
When Obama did indeed draw nearly 300,000 people in Germany the discussion rarely went to what does this draw mean and what does his overseas popularity suggest. Instead the conversation was always whether the coverage was over the top. Given that consistent backdrop, who is really getting their message across. The McCain campaign has to be credited for an impressive sales campaign in pushing the media into such a neurotic tail spin of insecurity. That sales effort out shown Obama's ability to draw over a quarter of a million people in a country where he's essentially a random foreign politician with aspirations for higher office. Further, the press discussion drifted to the potential negatives of such appeal in a foreign land. Again, an excellent sales job by the McCain campaign.
But in the end, the nature and character of the coverage of Obama's world tour is a reflection of the natural media propensities. The press will make you to create a story and then it will break you to create a second story. It can sold to hype things up (a bit more difficult), and then it can be sold again to destroy its creation (a lot easier, see: http://www.skewz.com/link/link_details/dana-milbank-president-obama-continues-hectic-victory-tour-washingtonpost-com). Eating your young is a lot easier and cheaper than investing in creating something new and insightful.


Salon.com
Comments
Reporters are ever fewer, ever younger and less experienced. Experience of the sort that lends itself to "new and insightful" is considered too expensive, at least in the print media.
I'm not bitter, the trend doesn't really affect me any more. But my visits to newsrooms always confirm that what I first noticed in the '80s and '90s is getting strung out in an agonizing death spiral.
Most of the people who would be great journalists if they made it their lives' work are out of the field by their 30s, in my opinion. What's left? Great kids, mediocrities and burnouts ...
McCain is a poor big-event speaker; so he has to attack one of Obama's obvious gifts, and strengths.
McCain, jealous at some level and knowing he can't match Obama in this way, must demean him.
McCain is taking on Bush media advisers with Rovian methods; so Obama will be softened up all summer long.
But it may be Obama's as good a debater in the hothouse of a television studio as he is an open-air speaker in a city like Berlin.
McCain could find himself undressed completely by the time those fall debates are over, regardless of the attacks on Obama.
Could be, it it works on the merits.
Still, fear and the attempted destruction of the "arrogant" young man from Chicago may win in the end.
"Don't underestimate ... "
Dead on. I worked in news in the 80s and 90s, experienced great heartache at the trends I saw and felt; and got out.
What passes for news today is a result of the vetting and bloodletting, and dumbing-down, from that time.
The "powers that be" have been taking advantage of this all along.
And here we are ...
I would actually prefer having someone more capable than me in the White House, wouldn't you?
How very depressing for us all.
I think all this talk about him being arrogant is hogwash. I often wonder if he was a white man, would he be considered arrogant. I don't know.
My sense is, the U.S. press doesn't ask this b/c they know the answer will kill the 'are we covering him too much?' story....