David Yepsen is the most prominent columnist in the Des Moines Register, Iowa's most widely read newspaper. One might think that such a title does not entitle him to overwhelming distinction, but come primary season, Yepsen's columns frame perceptions about the race.
Over the past weeks, I've noticed that Yepsen has penned several rosy accounts of Senator Obama's momentum in the first caucus state: None more so than today's blog post about Obama's performance at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, an event at which the Democratic candidates for the party's nomination deliver speeches in an attempt to reintroduce themselves to Iowans.
Yepsen had this to say about Obama's performance: "The passion he showed should help him close the gap on Hillary Clinton by tipping some undecided caucus-goers his way...His oratory was moving and he successfully contrasted himself with the others - especially Clinton - without being snide or nasty about it." He concludes his post by saying, "Should he win the Iowa caucuses, Saturday’s dinner will be remembered as one of the turning points in his campaign."
Was Obama's speech good? I think so. Is it a little too early to begin talking about this as a turning point for the campaign? Undoubtedly so. Obama remains in a statistical tie with Senator Clinton and John Edwards and has shown little ability to separate from the pack, despite his campaign, and even his wife, candidly admitting that he must win the state's caucus to have any shot at winning the nomination.
Does Yepsen have an agenda outside of serving as a wide-angle lens to the goings on in Iowa? It's a question worth asking. Take a look at some of Yepsen's articles, and type up a post if you find something that strikes you as overenthusiastically optimistic about Barack Obama. It's important. This guy determines what Iowans think about the candidates and what the nation thinks about the Iowa caucus.
11.11.2007
Media Matters: Yepsen Pulling for Obama?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It takes brave journalists like Yepsen to stand up to the Clinton machine and tell the truth.
Please check and see what the "Clinton News Network" CNN is doing nowadays.
Hillary has been planting questions in her tour and was caught planting one again this weekend but CNN did not as much make mention of it like other networks did.
We, the American people are very proud of Yepsen for standing up and telling the truth as it is.
I question whether this would have been an issue if Yepsen had been writing positive articles for other candidates.
No one seems concerned when CNN and NYT and other news outlets write favorably for Clinton and marginalize other candidates. Where was your commentary about the way CNN buried Clinton's drop in polls with headlines, that seemed to evolve into progressively more positive ones? Or how CNN's only comment about Barack's weekend performance was about the music he chose to enter to. NYT doesn't seem to know that there are candidates other than Clinton, Edwards and Obama running for President. And Fox News has been inappropriate for years. I appreciate your concern, but it seems as biased as you claim Yepsen's reporting to be.
I agree with frank, Yespen's objectivity is highly appreciated.
I wish Clinton supporters would stop winning each time some journalistic outlet questions the establishment candidate (Her Royal Highness Queen Inevitable).
The MSM reporting so far reminds me of the lead up to Iraq War during which period a majority reporters served as cheerleaders and forgot to question authority.
Yepsen may be one of the few journalist reporting what is on the ground in Iowa,
The evidence to back the numbers is obvious in the individual money donations and crowds that Obama receives.
Are the people at rallys also biased against Clinton?
linda
It is possible, of course, to be neither an Obama supporter nor a Clinton supporter. Calling Backer a Clinton supporter is ridiculous, as he is far from it. The idea that the mainstream media has found it difficult to "stand up" to Clinton or to support Obama is just absurd.
Frank, Mary, and Anonymous: I think you guys raise some good points, and I encourage you to post on this blog about any media issues which you find integral to the 2008 election.
I stand by my assertion that probably the most influential reporter on primary politics consistently presenting an overly optimistic view about Barack Obama is problematic. That's not to say that other problems do not exist. I simply mean to say that Barack Obama is a big boy, and he doesn't need David Yepsen writing his campaign narrative for him.
Post a Comment