So this recent article (I know, it's POLITICO, I know), got me thinking. Here, it shows that CNN, an outlet that once said they weren't going to cover Donald Trump, has actually written more about him than Clinton, or just about anybody else.
Full story is here: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-2016-media-coverage-119862.html#ixzz3fOdBoRql
It's easy to see why editors (remember, reporters typically don't get to 100% pick what they write about) are clamoring for more Trump, even while their reporters call him a joke. Trump says crazy things, he's a controversial figure, and people want to talk about him and read about him. That's true here too, a place that probably prides themselves on being a little more enlightened and all...I bet we've had more Trump posts over the last month than say, Marco Rubio ones.
Also, some argue that the press shouldn't be so presumptuous as to declare who can and cannot win so early. After all, Trump is polling like a mid to high tier candidate right now. Should he not therefore be treated like one?
There is also the argument that "electability" shouldn't be a factor at all, and those covering the race could certainly right about the impact Trump (or a campaign similar to is) might impact the way that others campaign. The same could be true for say, Bernie Sanders. How Sanders could impact Clinton, or the issues or trajectory of the race itself, is probably more newsworthy or even true than articles on CAN BERNIE WIN?!?
On the other hand, there is a finite amount of space and interest media, especially large media, can wield, and the more articles they write about mostly un-electable or fringe candidates takes away time, money, effort and eyeballs away from vetting or writing more about people who may actually someday wield political power. Perhaps that is the correct business decision (and maybe that's all that matters!), but do they have other ideals?
What do you think? Tried to make this a poll, but I don't think it neatly comes out that way. If you were an editor or publisher, how would you instruct your team?
Full story is here: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-2016-media-coverage-119862.html#ixzz3fOdBoRql
It's easy to see why editors (remember, reporters typically don't get to 100% pick what they write about) are clamoring for more Trump, even while their reporters call him a joke. Trump says crazy things, he's a controversial figure, and people want to talk about him and read about him. That's true here too, a place that probably prides themselves on being a little more enlightened and all...I bet we've had more Trump posts over the last month than say, Marco Rubio ones.
Also, some argue that the press shouldn't be so presumptuous as to declare who can and cannot win so early. After all, Trump is polling like a mid to high tier candidate right now. Should he not therefore be treated like one?
There is also the argument that "electability" shouldn't be a factor at all, and those covering the race could certainly right about the impact Trump (or a campaign similar to is) might impact the way that others campaign. The same could be true for say, Bernie Sanders. How Sanders could impact Clinton, or the issues or trajectory of the race itself, is probably more newsworthy or even true than articles on CAN BERNIE WIN?!?
On the other hand, there is a finite amount of space and interest media, especially large media, can wield, and the more articles they write about mostly un-electable or fringe candidates takes away time, money, effort and eyeballs away from vetting or writing more about people who may actually someday wield political power. Perhaps that is the correct business decision (and maybe that's all that matters!), but do they have other ideals?
What do you think? Tried to make this a poll, but I don't think it neatly comes out that way. If you were an editor or publisher, how would you instruct your team?
