Part II – Coverage
Watch one hour of election night television coverage and post your comments at the end of that hour. Click the Leave a Comment link above and enter:
Your name
The name of the television station you watched
Your observations and critiques of the individuals from media and government who were on the air during the hour your watched. Use these questions as a guideline:
- What was discussed during the hour?
- Who discussed it? Journalists? Analysts? Candidates? Campaign and party officials?
- Did you hear a consistent message from Democrats? Republicans? If so, what was it?
- Rate the questions asked by the journalists? Were they tough? Were they softballs? Did they help you understand the key points in the race? Was there tension between the journalists and the individuals they interviewed?
- If you were the producer of the hour you watched, what changes would you make in the coverage?
Responses should be two-to-four paragraphs.
Media & Government 
Nicole Marcinkiewicz
CBS
CBS presented a question and answer type program about the upcoming Midterm elections. I felt the production of the show was informative and I would not change much if I were in charge of the coverage. Bob Schieffer and a panel featuring CBS News’ Nancy Cordes and Rob Hendin, along with political consultant John Dickerson, answered questions submitted by online viewers through sources such as Twitter and Facebook about the upcoming 2010 midterm elections. The questions were sent by actual voters, so the panel was discussing the issues people of America are concerned with. I believe the questions the voters sent through online sources encompassed central points and problems of the election. The topics included the economy, healthcare, society, fraud votes, and how they influence each party.
A major discussion was how the Democrats are losing a lot of seats due to the lack of change President Obama promised. The Democrats have spent too much time on the topic and fight for healthcare reform while our economy remained unchanging and terrible. This may sway our instant gratification society to vote Republicans because people are frustrated and looking for change, the change Democrats did not supply. The Republicans are taking this to their advantage through ads saying “we must get reform right”, but in order for the GOP to win the House and or Senate, they need a flawless election night and to hold on to all of their seats.
The panel also discussed how the ads are outlandish and misleading taking the candidates out of context so you can’t learn anything about them that you can be sure is true. The polls suggest that the votes are basically even, leading towards the Republicans, but that American doesn’t like Republicans or Democrats. Recognizing the common interest in the fact everyone is angry at them, there might be the decision between the parties to actually accomplish something. This segment of election news did not contain any tension between the panel and helped me to understand the key points of the race.
Nicole Marcinkiewicz
November 2, 2010 at 3:19 am
Egzon Gashi
CNN
During the hour, the main discussion that was recurring was the development of the Tea Party. The analysts described how Tea Party candidates were actually likely to win in some of the races that they were involved in. A congressional correspondent from Time Magazine was being interviewed and questioned about the development of the Tea Party. The consistent message that was coming from this correspondent was that the Tea Party and Republicans should merge and that as a cohesive party they could be very successful.
I thought that the questions asked by the journalists were fairly strong. One of the best questions was about the influence of Sarah Palin on the Tea Party. The correspondent mentioned that Palin was not running for any office this year and that she was not sure if Palin had presidential aspirations in 2012. At the same time, she mentioned that Palin was influencing Republican women more than anything else. Another important question that was asked by the journalist was about what the outcome of the election would be. The congressional correspondent mentioned that this election would be a wave. This meant that there would be change across the board and that there were a vast amount of close races.
Another important aspect of the race that was covered by CNN was about the campaign help that others were offering. They focused especially on the efforts of former president Bill Clinton and the campaigning he has been doing for Strickland, the Ohio Gubernatorial candidate. They also mentioned that Hillary Clinton was not campaigning because the Secretary of State usually does not do so.
I think if I was the producer, the major change that I would make would be to focus specifically on the election coverage throughout the day. CNN sometimes branched off and focused on some other relatively unimportant topics such as teen stars and rehab. The reason I would change this is because I think CNN could lose viewers by switching to topics other than the election on election day. Overall, however, I was happy with the coverage and learned a great deal about the election and candidates.
Egzon Gashi
November 2, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Amy O’Hara
CBS
During the hour, voter machine malfunctions were discussed. Some people were complaining the font was too small to read the referendums on the back and some machines were jamming with the ballots. The paper jams led to long waits and frustrated voters. Also, privacy envelopes are an issue because people are removing them to ask poll workers questions about the ballots. By doing this, their private vote might have been revealed. The anchors talked about the problems and welcomed tweets from voters who discussed their voting experience. Also, the anchor mentioned that the candidate from the Rent is too Damn High party cast his vote this morning.
The possible house switch, from Democrat to Republican, was also talked about by reporters and analysts. Soundbites from both Democrats and Republicans were used in reference to this story.
Pocketbook issues are also a factor in the elections. Many voters discussed how they wanted lower taxes. This story was reported on by a political analyst. The analyst asked voters why they voted the way they did. Since they were just man-on-the-street interviews, the questions were not tough and there was no tension caused by the journalists. There were no interviews with politicians or candidates.
I would not change anything in the hour because it was about issues with the people instead of a lot of technical political speak. I understood the issues that were discussed.
Amy O'Hara
November 2, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Ed McGarrigle
CNN
During the hour, the main discussion that took place was how Obama was going to cooperate with a Republican majority. Most of the pundits agreed that the Republicans were going to take back the majority in both houses. They were not sure how Obama would work with them. Also discussed was voters opinions during this election. Most of the political analysts agreed that the uprise in Republican voters was not so much anti-democrat but more of a response to not getting what they were promised. The pundits thought that voters were upset with both parties.
The questions raised by the journalist weren’t too hard. They were more lofty “what if” type questions. The political analysts and strategists that responded were generally well mannered. Some were even joking and laughing at some point. There was not much tension in the room at all.
The Democrats and Republicans that were on the show were basically saying the same things. The Democrats were saying that they hoped to retain a majority and that people needed to realize that change was coming but it does not happen over night. The Republicans wanted a majority because they are unhappy in the direction the country is going in. They were confident that they would get the majority back.
There were a few small things that I would change if I were running this program. First, the music that was played when a correspondent was discussing exit polls was over the top and extreme. It was meant to add a sense of drama to the coverage but ended up being cheesy. There was also too many commercial breaks. I understand that the station needs to make money. However, the breaks came too often, sometimes right as a discussion was beginning to get rolling.
Ed McGarrigle
November 2, 2010 at 5:58 pm
watched CNN – Wolf Blitzer
it was about 30 minutes to polls closing. they were talking about how dissatisfied Americans are with politics, with ominous music playing in the background. Wolf Blitzer headed the show, with statistics about the concerns of Americans today. There was a soundbite of the President’s support of the Democrats. A political team of strategists and analysts were brought in to discuss the Democrats defeat (surprisingly, Blitzer had already denounced any Democratic victories today). The team discussed the future of Congress, and having Tea Partiers and how their presence in Congress will affect legislation. A leftist believed a Jon Stewart-esque response, saying that the people of the US just want both parties to work together to get things done, due to their complete dissatisfaction with government. David Gergen said that the people are not happy with either side, and desire to self-govern. Though the House majority may completely flip, the board believes that the scenario is not the same as in 1994, again because people are not happy with either major party.
Amidst various candidates coverage, they spoke of the governorship of ohio and what each would do if they won, very vaguely, basically going over their platforms from questions previously asked.
at every other commercial break, they brought up the approval rating of the president/congress, pressing home that no one is satisfied. blitzer also discussed the separation between the people of the US possibly being higher than when President Bush was in office.
There was also some feedback from viewers discussing the divide, that seems to be in favor of the Democrats, but also was critical of Obama’s constant reverberations of the difference of ‘his team’ and the other which has kept the divide wide.
Upon speaking with a reporter in Arizona, both Blitzer and the reporter spoke of the Tea Partiers being at the same location as Reids supporters to “rub in their face” if Sharon Angle wins, already demeaning the potential Republican victory as a childish snubbing.
Since it was CNN, it is not surprising to see the network show favor or sympathy towards the Democratic party, and also most of the reports come from people saying that the American people are not happy with either party, I cannot agree with that. Any person that I hear dissatisfaction with is not happy with the current administration and majority in Congress. Their viewpoints of saying that the split between the parties is detrimental, I agree. There is great vehemence between Dems and Reps, so everyone should get out and cast their vote to get what they want done.
I believe that the coverage could have covered more aspects of the election, what it did cover was relevant to the day. More in depth news will be coming more once the polls close and the results are in and people can begin giving concrete responses.
Nicholas Griffith
November 2, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Patrick Boyle
CNN
CNN was very sporadic in their coverage of the 2010 Elections. Many things were discussed during the hour. Much of CNN’s focus was on poll locations in New York, Delaware, and Ohio where CNN news correspondents and analysts discussed the possible “shift in power” if Republicans took over. They interviewed voters, most of which expressed frustration with the lack of changes that Obama has made thus far in his administration. CNN switched to side stories like Bill Clinton’s assistance to Ted Strickland in the governor’s race in Ohio. In between segments, CNN featured questions emailed in from viewers at home. Most of these questions asked what would be different if Republicans did take over the House of Representatives and the Senate. During CNN’s “Situation Room” segment, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steel expressed confidence in fulfilling the voter’s decision. He says that Republicans want to decrease government spending, put a halt on the stimulus plan, and do things to encourage small businesses to invest in the economy. Steel said he hopes to hear Obama say that he “hears the American people, and looks forward to working cooperatively with new Republican leadership in the House and the Senate.” Republicans message was consistent, saying that can better serve society than Democrats have in the past 2 years.
CNN showed video clips of Nancy Pelusi expressing confidence in the Democratic party, even though she could lose her position as Speaker of the House to Ohio Republican John Boehner. CNN also showed coverage of Proposition 19, which would legalize and tax Marijuana in California. They also talked a lot of the Senate race in Colorado, because the polls are very close. CNN talked a lot about American’s conflicting view of healthcare in our country. Most polls showed that people were fed up with both Democrats AND Republicans, which I find interesting. CNN should many statistics, showing that Obama’s approval rating has gone down, and that most Americans blame the current economic crisis on “wall street bankers”.
I think the coverage was good, but too sporadic. I think CNN could have had a much more clear focus, and could have sprinkled in some side stories with tact. They just seemed to be all over the place with their flow of stories. There weren’t many actual interviews, so much as round tables with analysts discussing predictions. I think they were articulate about each parties’ stance on important issues. If I was a producer of CNN I would have better organized this particular hour of broadcast.
Patrick Boyle
November 2, 2010 at 6:20 pm
CNN
Tea Party candidates were discussed for a good part of the hour that I watched. After talking about polls closing, Wolf Blitzer turned to the panel with him and brought up Tea Party candidates. Blitzer cut them off and talked about polls some more, mostly about them closing soon (6-7 pm). After that it went to commercial break.
When CNN returned Blitzer immediately returned to the polls. The two states he discussed were Indiana and Kentucky. The main focus of his narrative was upon Rand Paul’s chances in Kentucky. He then handed it off to another anchor and he discussed the polls up on one of the touch screens that CNN prides itself upon.
He proceeded to talk about “What if?” and assigned races to one party or the other and left it at 49-44 in favor of the Democrats with 7 seats left to discuss. The use of “for the sake of this hypothetical” was used a lot and “I was generous to the Republicans” was used a couple of times. Liberal or democratic bias was evident in his approach to the hypothetical. The whole situation was bizarre because the main evidence for his selections were the confidence of one party or the other, not poll results or anything else.
The Tea Party situation was discussed by the typical CNN panel of former strategists and analysts. They kind of passed the ball around and discussed the fact that Tea Party candidates had a lot of buzz but for a few of them it fizzled out. Before Blitzer took back the mic they talked a little bit about how O’Donnell is getting destroyed in Delaware.
Both parties had the same messages. “We’re winning, we’re doing well…” The same message that is said pretty much every election cycle. Neither party (at least not during this hour) was coming out and really claiming anything message wise. Just the standard “we feel confident here and here.”
At this point in the night they weren’t interviewing anyone. The closest they came to interviews was going to a reporter that was following the President during the elections. They compared him to former President Clinton in regards to his need to know about elections. The reporter said that while Obama wanted to know what was going on, he isn’t the political animal that Clinton was. The next closest “interview” was when Blitzer asked a fellow CNN reporter to discuss “What if?”
I would have gotten rid of the “What if” section. It was really poorly done and was without merit on most predictions. If there was a statisical, historically and current politics method to it then I wouldn’t complain. That’s the opposite of what the segment entailed. “Again this is a hypothetical” should not be a defense of a “What if?” segment. If you’re going to call it what if and going to project who wins what then why continuous point it out that this is all hypothetical? It’s unbearably redundant.
Scott Kessler
November 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm
MSNBC
The anchors for the broadcast were Eugene Robinson, Lawrence O’Donnell, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews. Senator Bob Menendez was asked by Chris Matthews about how he thought the Democrats were doing so far in the election. At the time, the Republicans seemed to be ahead in polls for the first few states, but Menendez was still determined and said nothing is official yet and that they are still fighting. About 15 minutes later they asked Democratic congressman Chris Van Hollen the same question to which he gave the same response. The expectation at the time was that the Democrats were going to lose 25 seats.
Later Chris Matthews interviewed Mike Pence a Republican representative. Afterwards Lawrence O’Donnell criticized Matthews for not being tougher on him. Pence was able to ease around questions focusing on sending the message that they are central on abortion, central on civil rights, and for tax relief for everyone. Rachel Maddow pointed out that privately they are against abortion and for tax breaks but only for big businesses. Another issue brought up by Lawrence O’Donnell was about health reform and how there needs to be a complete repeal and replacement of the health care bill. The problem as the rest of the anchors pointed out was that the only way that could happen was if Obama did not veto it and odds are that he will veto it.
I feel the coverage was neutral, however it was very difficult to follow. Just as they began to get into great detail on a certain point, they quickly moved on to another one. Luckily I was able to rewind certain parts to get things that I missed, but if I was producer, certainly I would have taken more time with certain issues so that the average television viewer was more likely to get the information.
Aaron Antigua
November 2, 2010 at 7:14 pm
I watched MSNBC from 6 -7PM with Keith Olbermann being the host. He first spoke to people on his panel. The first one was Chris Matthews who owns his own television show, and who discussed how bad the economy was. He also discussed that although he doesn’t believe Obama did a bad job, the Republicans are going to attack him for it. He then spoke to Rachel Maddow, a host of her own political show on MSNBC who discussed that although the Democrats would lose seats, they might not lose enough to allow the Republicans to gain power. She also discussed how the Democrats did the right things in the past two years although many Americans view these as the wrong things. He talked to Ed Shultz, who also has his own television show and was commentating from Senator Reid’s headquarters in Nevada. He discusses that it is supposed to be a close race and although Sharron Angle is ahead, Reid does have a shot of coming back. Everything discussed by the panel helped show me what the key problems were in the eyes of the people, although I felt that the panel wasn’t as worried as they should be since they are all liberal.
Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey was the first person interviewed who wasn’t part of the MSNBC staff. Olbermann gave him softball like questions like “how do you think the Democrats will fair in the election?’ Chris Matthews then asked the Senator if the Democrats would have an easier time beating these “crazy” Republicans rather than if the Republicans had “real candidates”. Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland was then interviewed. He says that this race isn’t over till it’s over. He stated that Democratic voters in the northeast are coming out higher than predicted to vote.
Republican Mike Pence was the only right-winged person interviewed in the first hour of coverage. Chris Matthews asked if he would run for President in 2012 as well as what is the future of the economy. He avoided the question dealing with the presidential nomination and instead said that no matter what happens tonight, the people of America are the real winners of the night. The questions asked to him were tougher than those asked to the Democratic politicians who were interviewed.
One big problem that they all talked about is what will happen to the healthcare bill. The majority of people who spoke about it said that if the Republicans gain power then who knows what will happen. Obviously, the Tea Party candidates are going to try and repeal it rather than reform it. After the repeal, they would completely replace the Obama-care Bill. Another thing that was largely discussed was the high percentage of people who are unemployed. The Republicans promised not to party tonight to make a statement that they won’t celebrate while people are sitting at home without jobs. Towards the middle of the hour, they discussed polls which stated what citizens were upset with. The Majority felt the biggest problems were the economy, the future of the nation, and unemployment.
The consistent message from the Democrats was that they know they will be losing seats rather than gaining them. Their goal, as a party, is to try and hold the damage to a minimum. They also say that the Republicans want to privatize social security and completely replace the health-care bill with something more conservative. Without really having Republicans having a say in the first hour of coverage, I really didn’t get to hear what they had to say or what their opinion was on anything mentioned by MSNBC.
If I was the producer of the hour I watched, I would have had more Republicans on. Although I know MSNBC has a liberal biased, I feel like they didn’t address any problems that the current administration have made. They weren’t willing to admit that anything has gone wrong in the past two years and that this country is still on course to do some good. Personally, I lean slightly more to the left and I am willing to admit that not everything has gone right since Obama became President. I rather hear MSNBC, during elections, become more objective than biased because that’s really what is important when people are voting, specifically to those watching on the west coast who have yet to vote.
By 7 PM Republicans Rand Paul and Dan Coats were both winning their senate races in their respective states. Although neither were picked winners just yet, I feel they have a big enough lead to win.
John Paredes
November 2, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Elena LoBello
MSNBC
During the hour of coverage I watched, it was before the polls closed so there was a lot of statistics being shown and a lot of interviews with people to project their predictions. The journalists covering the story continued to check in with key states Indiana, Virginia and Nevada who they stressed were important states.
Luke Russert, a correspondent from Capital Hill stressed that even if Republicans gain control of the senate, he said that the people awaiting results was not an “election watch party.” He said its still a very tough situation and tons of people are still out of jobs so there is cause for celebration.
The segment “The Voice of the Voter” showed the results of the exit polls of the voters. The results showed that many people are still worried about the economy because many have had members of their family laid off. An interesting statistic showed that 56% of the voters believe that the government is doing too much and is not actually helping.
The journalists also interviewed Senator Bob Mendez from NJ and Rep. Chris Van Hollen from Maryland, both Democrats who are in charge of keeping Democrats in the Senate and House, respectively.
The journalists asked Mendez questions regarding the Democrats’ feelings toward the unusual choices of Republican candidates and whether it is a good sign for the Democrats. Mendez said these are candidates that don’t really address the issues of these states and that he feels the Democrats stand a good chance. Hollen felt similarly that the Democrats have a good change in the House, but stressed that is still very early to tell. He said that key states will be New York and Pennsylvania, and there is no way of knowing until these states’ results are in. Hollen did stress that those who predicted that the Democrats stood no chance in the House were wrong, and that it is a very good race.
The one Republican interviewed was Mike Pence, a Representative from Indiana. The Journalists questioned what would be the most important thing the Republicans could give their voters if elected, and he stressed that a Republican victory isn’t just a Republican victory but a win for the American people. He reinforced that the most important thing is to get the economy moving.
The journalists all asked very good questions to all of the people they talked too. They seemed to pay more attention to the Democratic representatives but they still put them on the spot. The Republican representative they asked a few intense questions, but didn’t seem to give him as much time to respond as they did the Democrats. One of the journalists almost seemed to be mocking Mike Pence. If I were the producer, I would have stressed more of an equal representation of the two parties, even some coverage of the Independents. I also would have shown and talked to some actual voters.
Elena LoBello
November 2, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Journalists and anchors on CNN were discussing the potential unbelievable shift in America’s northeast from a strong democratic region (both in the last election and traditionally) to a much more mixed and republican region. The analysts were saying that the republicans were really targeting areas in Ohio where they believe that one-time Obama supporters will now shift to their side. Other key states they discussed were West Virginia, Indiana, and Florida.
What really shocked me was how scared some of the reporters sounded at the prospects of the Democratic party in these elections. I didn’t realize how just a couple years could dramatically change the political landscape of our country. As I watch the votes being counted and the percentage of vote numbers change in the various states within the last half hour of election day, I can feel the excitement and nervousness of the media growing.
The people being interviewed by the various media personnel did not seem to mind the questions they were being asked. However, this isn’t surprising because most of the questions being asked at this point aren’t as opinion-based as they are fact-based. The news anchors are mostly asking questions about where they see changes in public opinion and why, but they are not tough or heated questions for the most part.
If I were the producer of the program I watched, I wouldn’t change many things. The music, images, personalities, and coverage that CNN showed seemed logical and were effective. With 45 seconds left the anchor got into a conversation about how CNN doesn’t make predictions. During these last few seconds and minutes I would have wanted to see an image of the map of the country with percentages and names of those on the ballet, just to refresh my memory before the results are out.
Esther Rothman
November 2, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Johanna Ordonez
-CNN
In the hour that I watched CNN they mainly spoke about how the democrates and republicans were upset and how the republicans were winning against democrates.
They are predicting who will win in Kentucky, Indiana, Vermont, and South Carolina. John King says who is up on the Senate and House of Representative races. They did a what if to see what would need to happen for certain parties to win. Anderson Cooper speaks to Eliot Spitzer, Candy Crowley, Soledad O’Brien, Paul Begala, William Bennet, Mary Matalyn and more. He asks them what they predict and the major response is that the parties are upset with the past years. The voters have not gotten what they have asked for. The house to them seems to be goin to the Republicans.
The republicans don’t have a chance to raise the senate but do for house. the exit polls were spoken about and how democrates feel they have a better chance with the exit polls.they have ascerted that Barack Obamas policies are what people don’t like and its not Barack Obama.
The constant message I kept hearing was how the Republicans and Democrates were upset about the way the white house was run and also how the Republicans would win the spot on the House and possibly the Senate. The questions that were asked to the panel was more opinion questions and weren’t very difficult questions. I feel like it couldv’e been more complicated considering they have so much information to give if they had the right questions to answer.It did help me understand their positions but still the questions were weak. The journalists were able to conduct themselves accordingly and were able to respond intelligently.
The republicans are targeting people that are high class, where Hillary Clinton won her votes. The democrates at this moment are in trouble in the house of representatives,the republicans feel that if they are winning in Indiana then they are winning for the majority votes everywhere else.
The coverage on CNN was, to me, good and well structured. We were able to get points and idead from many different parties as well as the publics. The speakers were mostly predicting many situations but also put a reason behind that.
Johanna Ordonez
November 2, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Nancy Cooney
CNN: Election Night in America
When polls closed at 7:00 P.M. in various states, CNN analysts gave their projections on who was going to win seats. John King used a map to play “games” such as “What if?” To predict which candidates would win the seats.
It then switched over to a panel of partisan analysts/commentators. The panel had an equal amount of Democrats and Republicans such as former New York governor Eliot Spitzer (D), and William Bennett (R).
There was not serious hostility between the panelists – if anything just sly remarks, snickers, and interruptions. The Democrats seemed to be prepared for the worst so they remained pretty low key.
When more polls closed at 7:30 P.M., host/analyst Wolf Blitzer did more projections. Then journalist Anderson Cooper was asking the panel questions. I think he did a good job because he really let the panelists speak/debate and didn’t interject too much. I think they had interesting questions such as “who is to blame?” for the bad economy. The panelists expressed varied opinions – it was not too one-sided.
If I were the producer I would have half as many panelists because it is not necessary and they all start to sound the same after a while. Also, I think they overdid it with the little map games.
Nancy Cooney
November 2, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Omer Orman
MSNBC
On MSNBC, Place for Politics: Decision 2010, I watched Keith Olbermann, Chris Mathews, and Rachel Maddow interview Democrat Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Democrat Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and Republican Representative Michael Pence of Indiana. I found it interesting the way the interview was handled as well as the difference between Republican and Democrat messages.
The Democrat message deferred greatly from the republican message. It seems Democrats are interested more in healthcare, middle class, and education than Republicans. Republicans seem to be influenced by big business, big oil, and big insurance. Menendez states, “Sixteen want privatize or eliminate social security, 11 want to do the same the Medicare, 10 abolish Department of Education, and 4 want to eliminate or reduce minimum wage.” Menendez talks comfortably during the interview and seems very welcomed.
Democrat candidates were treated much better than Republicans by the interviewing panel. When Pence was interviewed he stressed his first priority would be tax cuts. After the interview someone from the panel stated, “I heard another one say their first goal was to reform health care.” It made it seem like the Republicans priorities were not organized well .I don’t think this would’ve been said if the representative was a democrat.
I also found some leeway when Olbermann was speaking to Representative Hollen. Their discussion was mostly about the democratic election turnout being better than expected. It’s a great thing that ballots at Bridgeport ran out early, but it’s a little on the dull side for a discussion. If I were the producer I would have asked more questions related to the issues rather than at the very end.
Omer Orman
November 2, 2010 at 8:05 pm
I watched an hour of the election coverage on CNBC. During this hour, polls were beginning to close, and they began discussing the results that had been coming in. From what I saw, the Republicans had so far won in states like Ohio and Kentucky for Senate. Beside discussing the election results as they came in, topics such as healthcare, the economy, unemployment, and government spending were also discussed. They had panels set up discussing these topics and journalists interviewed others such as an unemployed woman and former republican state majority leader, Trent Lott.
When discussing the economy and unemployment, most on the panel agreed that they supported Obama, but were disappointed. They said he must continue to lead, which they felt in the past few weeks he has been doing. When interviewing Trent Lott, they questioned him about he felt with the Republicans leading, and also asked him about what could and should come out of this election. Journalists asked him questions pertaining to spending, the economy and taxes. He answered these questions by saying he believes Obama must develop relationships with the Republican leaders, which he felt he had never done before. With the development of these relationships, he felt it would create many more opportunities to make our country better, including addressing tax issues and government spending.
I felt the questions by the journalists addressed the key points of the election and were very fair, especially during the interview with Trent Lott. I believe the questions helped represent ideas that could be solutions to the problems we are having with the economy, taxes, unemployment, etc. I don’t believe there was much tension between the journalists and those interviewed. The only part that may have caused a little tension was when Trent Lott, Republican, was interviewed. However, even then, it helped present useful information for voters and other citizens.
I would not make any changes to the coverage during this hour. I believe they covered the important issues revolving around these midterm elections. Each issue was addressed with fair, relevant questions, and each question was answered with useful and informative ideas.
Amanda Piccinich
November 2, 2010 at 8:05 pm
I watched CNN from 7:00 to 8:00. The main individuals discussing the election were Anderson Cooper and “the best political team on television”. The team was comprised of Kathleen Parker, William Bennett, ex-Governor Eliot Spitzer, and other political analysts. The consistent message heard from Democrats is that they were prepared to lose the House of Representatives, but couldn’t afford to lose the Senate. On the other hand, the consistent message from the Republicans was that they wanted not only to take the House, but the Senate as well.
I feel like the questions and topics brought up by the analysts were pretty tough. They got pretty heated in discussing whether or not Obama’s approval rating was tied to the decline of the Democratic Party. In fact, one of the analysts were quoted as saying “Two years ago, the Republican Party was considered dead”. This is obviously no longer the case, as “60% of our nation believes we’re headed in the wrong direction”. Another interesting point is that the House normally don’t change during the first term of a President, only the second term if it changes at all.
At 7:30, it was projected that the Republicans had taken Indiana, which was considered an important state for them to control Congress. An analyst believed that “1 out of 6 Americans looking for work aren’t very happy”, which may lead to those voting against the Democratic party. Also, it was mentioned that “every time the House changes, the Senate changes as well”. Would this mean that the Republicans would not only take over the House, but the Senate as well? Finally, Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell fell short in her bid in Delaware. If I was the producer of the show, the only thing I would’ve changed is to have some people outside of the studio, preferably journalists, asking some good questions. For the hour I watched, the only people giving their thoughts were the analysts in the studio.
Rick McCutcheon
November 2, 2010 at 8:18 pm
* Rick McCutcheon
* CNN
Rick McCutcheon
November 2, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Michael Morsella
CNN
I watched CNN from 8pm-9pm. During the hour the panel was discussing the impact of Rep. Rob Portman win for the Ohio Senate seat and how in a state where Obama won in 2008 and a bellwether state how the tides have turned in just 2 years. Also discussed was Christine O’Donnell’s loss and the impact that this favorites loss had on her camp. What was also discussed during the hour was the Heated campaigning continued to the last minute on Tuesday. President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton asking Democrats and independents to hold off a Republican surge while GOP candidates promised to change how Washington operates. Throughout the hour polls were coming in and projections being made in many key states. CNN had Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper as the main hosts. The analysts included James Carville, Elliot Spitzer, Paul Begala, and Donna Brazile.
I believe the questions asked were relatively strong. Wolf Blitzer questioned Tim Kaine the current chairman of the Democratic National Committee and his feelings on how the night was developing. He asked him how he felt about the Republicans ability to pick up seats and how he was taking this fact in. He discussed how the Democrats knew that Republicans would take seats but he also had faith that the Democrats would hold their ground in the close races. This interview made me see the Democratic pulse on how the election was going during the hour and how they were dealing with losing a few seats. Overall the interviews are very informative.
If I was the producer I believe that the analysts were pretty solid they seemed quite informed and knew what they were talking about. I might change the constant use of numbers and maybe analyze a little more until it is clear who the winner of a certain state will be and then begin talking about the impact of the win.
Michael Morsella
November 2, 2010 at 8:23 pm
CNN: Election Night in America
On Election Night in America Anderson Cooper and his team of Political Analysts discussed how the Republicans were considered dead 2 years ago after the election of Democratic President Barack Obama. However in the 2010 mid-terms the Republicans are back. This is considered shocking because the house and possibly Senate is turning on the President which does not usually happen in his first term. Going into the night the Republican Party only needed a net gain of 39 seats to take control of the house and the analysts argued over who would win which state.
The analysts talked about the fact that the Democrats were prepared to lose the House but needed to stay the majority in the Senate. They then showed Nancy Pelosi giving a speech in Washington DC. If the Democrats lose the house this would mean the removal of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of The House for the Democratic Party as they would no longer be in power. According to CNN the Ohio senate seat was won by Republican Rob Portman around 7:30 pm. The analysts then talked about how this was a good indicator of how the night may go for the Democratic party because Ohio was a state in which President Obama campaigned hard for since he has became President for the Democrats. He had visited the state 12 times. One of the analysts named William Bennet believes that Obama’s policies since he became President are hurting the Democrats.
Kathleen Parker says that in January of 2009 Obama’s approval rating was at 75% which was very strong but since then it has gone downward, and since 1 out of 6 Americans are looking for work they are going to blame the party in charge for their struggles. Eliot Spitzer argues that Economics are the reason why the Democrats support has gone down.
Anderson Cooper I felt did a good job of asking the people he was interviewing tough questions that got right to the point. However if I was a producer on the show I would have had Anderson Cooper do more interviews of Senators and House members who are or even are not running as I am more interested in hearing what they have to say instead of his team of analysts.
Kevin Nielsen
November 2, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Patrick Bowman
CNN
I watched CNN from 7:30-8:30 and during this hour they discussed many different races in many different states. During this hour polls closed in many different states and a lot of the winners had been revealed. Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer ran most of the hour that I watched, with Cooper mediating a round table of political analysts and Blitzer working the hi-tech board showing the different races.
In the beginning of the hour they showed exit poll data from West Virginia showing that Republicans had won there. They talked about how many big states were closing their polls soon, 15 different states and Washington DC. CNN kept flashing between Blitzer giving results and Cooper talking with a table of experts. One major theme i noticed was that all of the experts agreed that the Republican’s will gain seats and that this change is not a direct attack against Obama, but rather a “Referendum on Obama’s Policies.” They showed Nancy Pelosi speaking in Washington DC about how the Democrats will fight in this election and win fair and square to “Take the country back in the right direction.”
During the last part of the hour there was less of the analyst roundtable and much more giving of results. The major results that were given as I watched were Coons (D) winning in Delaware, I found this one particularly interesting because he beat Christine O’Donnell who I remember from her “I am not a witch” commercial. Some other Senate wins included Rubio (R) in Florida, Ayote (R) in New Hampshire, Makulski (D) in Maryland and Lumenthal (D) in Connecticut. Another big thing they spoke about during the end of the hour was the large increase in the racial/ethnic diversity of the candidates. There were 61 African American candidates this year, the most in history.
Patrick Bowman
November 2, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Josh Chudnow
CNN
I watched Election Night in America on CNN from 7:30-8:30 p.m. Much of the commentary focused on the gains the Republicans had made and how high these gains were likely to be. As results came in from staes like Florida and New Hampshire projections were made concerning the winner.
In between the announcements of projected winners there were two different panels who commented on the results and were asked questions by the show’s host. They provided good commentary and seemed to be mixed in terms of political ideology. About 20 minutes before 8:30 Tim Kaine, the Democratic National Committee Chairman was questioned by Wolf Blitzer about the election. Blitzer asked some tough questions especially concerning the large gains it seemed the Republicans were making. Kaine tried to emphasize the gains the Democrats were making and remind viewers that these were just projections since not all the votes were in.
If I was the producer I would have cleaned up the numbers and images on the screen. At times it was too difficult to tell what was going on since the screen looked so cluttered. I also had difficultly determining how many seats the Democrats and Republicans needed to takeover the House or Senate.
Joshua Chudnow
November 2, 2010 at 8:40 pm
The cultural consequence of the Republicans overtaking the Democratic House was of much concern during the hour. Even though it was often repeated that this has been the tightest race for some time to come, it seems growing fear of a new political system was still in the air.
One of the issues discussed was based on money ultimately being what dictated the poll winnings. This was made an example of when an analyst said, that the first big victory for Republicans are those who have been pouring millions into the race. The outside republican spending on behalf of Paul attacking Conway, (of Colorado) was because he spent 3 million dollars more than the democratic candidate.
The money came from Crossroads GPS which then came from undisclosed owners and big distributors who did not need to reveal themselves, but did so anyway.
The chamber of congress attacked Conway on behalf of Paul and one of the biggest stories still remained as outside spending. They mentioned that this is the first big test to show just how influential the affluent can be, and it shows in this case it’s working. The concluding analyst’s remark was “All you need is cash.”
Investigative Reporter, Michael Isikoff of NBC news says there’s secret spending and its hard to imagine a republican dominating Congress because it is going to look favorably that is going to undercut that is going to allow them to do the same thing two years from now. Therefore, there is going to be many more marginal Democrats who will worry. The last Congress used a reconciliation device to use half of the piece of legislated one way.
Senator Michael Bennet seeking election tonight was also interviewed. With polls closing in an hour during the tightest race in the country, he said he was happy to be winning it the old-fashioned way. “We need every single vote.” His main concern for the isolated individuals at home to get up before the hour was hour that during the worst economical sate, reporters should still try to change the education system that is going to support us and break alliance on foreign oil and ultimately educate our kids and that is what we’re looking for and that’s what used to be friendship.
I feel this was a perfect opportunity for the producer to have switched over to voters in the polls in the last hour and perhaps questioning why they waited until the last hour and what drove them to make that last-minute decision. I feel overall the people’s voice was lost in the show and that what is most ambivalent among all the information provided during the hour. Overall, the news correspondents of the hour were not consistent in their portrayal of the Democrats and the Republicans and the issues were not described in great deal. Rather issues were touched on and then scraped away.
Gisella Gutierrez
November 2, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Watched MSNBC from 6 – 7pm. It was a panel discussion of MSNBC hosts and analysts as well as Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson. The panel consisted of Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Lawrence O’Donnell in addition to Mr. Robinson. Since most polling places across the country had not yet closed, there were no actual results as of 7pm.
The hour began with the panelists opining as to just how many seats Democrats would or could lose in the House of Representatives and the Senate and why. All of them agreed the Dems will lose seats and possibly control of the House, while retaining a majority in the Senate. The discussions were largely why they felt this inevitable and what Democrats and Republicans will do going forward. MSNBC political editor, Chuck Todd, was brought in to examine what he said were some of the key states to watch for as the first of the polls begin to close at 7pm. and then at 7:30pm. Various MSNBC reporters from the Capital building as well as certain states where races were considered tight with real consequences for both parties. Nevada in particular, where current Senate majority leader Harry Reid is being challenged by Republican Sharon Angle.
Considering that MSNBC is a somewhat left-leaning, liberal media outlet, the reporting seemed to be fair and the expectations realistic. N.J. Democratic Senator Robert Menendez , was asked how he felt the election would go and why he thought his party would lose congressional seats. He repeated an often cited historical fact that the President’s party tends to lose seats in congress in mid-term elections. The panel’s questions were by no means “softball” in nature, to the contrary, seemed probing as to how his party could have perhaps staved off these anticipated losses and how they might proceed after the election. As of 6:30pm., no Republican candidate or strategist had been presented for opinion. Rep. Chris Van Hollen(D) Maryland, was upbeat about preliminary signs from the numbers of voters turning out thus far, which he felt was a good sign for his party.
The first Republican interviewed was Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana at 6:40 pm. He was asked about the prospects of his party possibly taking control of the House of Representatives. He spoke of pushing for tax cuts and less spending initiatives. The questions to Pence were focused and civil. After he left however, certain panel members were critical of his answers and incites.
To summarize the hour, the Democrats were consistent in their message, if not resigned to a less than successful election result. Republican views as stated by Rep. Pence were also in line with their campaign issues. There did seem to be a downplaying of the effect Tea Party candidates may have in the election by Pence even as he validated their positions.
Pundits repeated several times during the hour that Democrats were pessimistic, while Republicans were largely optimistic. Republicans were reluctant to claim any major victories as of 7pm., as the first of the polls closed, however.
Had I been a producer of the hour I watched, I would have had fewer panelists and more interviews with both Democrats and Republicans in key state races. The was more time taken up with the panels’ opinions, and I would have liked to see more exit poll results and more actual on-site reporters. I realize I chose an early hour in the process, so I wasn’t expecting any actual results or predictions.
Lauren Sieber
November 2, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Andrew Ghilino
I watched CNN news’ live coverage of the 2010. I watched between 7:30 and 8:30 pm, right around the time when most of the polls were closing. As expected there was much speculation as to who would win the states in the end. There was also much discussion about how the Tea Party would factor into Republican votes. As some of the states’ winners were announced, there was discussion over what impact the one person would have in either the House or the Senate. I was confused by this because one single Congressman, while it may be a big deal for a state, there are still hundreds of other Congressman that will make more of an impact as a group.
There was a combination of journalists, political analysts and even former politicians on panel discussing what was going on. I couldn’t really detect any clear messages coming from either party other than when they were interviewing the winners. The winners were talking about how happy they were and how they felt their victory was critical. There seemed to be a chemistry of excitement and craziness between journalists and politicians. I was able to gain an understanding over the importance of each race based on the analysis. If I was a producer, I would try to also get opinions from voters to add to the election coverage.
Andrew Ghilino
November 2, 2010 at 8:51 pm
It’s approximately 9:00 pm and I’ve been watching since 7:00 pm. It’s pretty easy to get wrapped up in this, but it did start to get a little repetitive. I watched CNN for the majority of the time, but occasionally switched to FOX and NY NONSTOP.
The first thing I noticed was that all of the stations seemed to bring up the electronic voting system. They interviewed some people on the street and they all said that the print on the ballots was way too small and difficult to see.
I watched CNN for the majority of the time. Anderson Cooper is the host, and they had a panel of analysts, both Democratic and Republican there for insight. I thought that was a good thing so you could see both points. There were about two tables worth of analysts, consisting of about 7 at each table. There was definitely a few trends I noticed in their messages. They were pretty much considering the House to be as good as gone for Democrats. One specific quote said by a Democratic analyst was, “The house is gone, we can all pretty much agree on that.” They were saying that the Senate was going to be much more difficult for the Republicans to pick up considering they need a 10 seat swing. They also brought up the fact that yes, the Republican party may be taking over the house, but is it the tea party (R), or the original party. One analyst said the Democrats were loosing the vote of the white, blue collar worker that once supported President Obama.
I noticed many of the analysts were bringing up that this election is about the economy and jobs, first and foremost. One woman said that the reason for a Republican turnaround is because it is a referendum on President Obama. Seeing as how his approval ratings have dropped so drastically, and the public is not happy with his stimulus and health care plan, the public has lost faith in the Democratic party because of this.
When the polls close in certain states, the network would say they have “predictions” of what the outcomes are, which I just assumed to be pretty much final and they just can’t say that yet.
I didn’t really catch any interviews with the exception of the host on NY NONSTOP talking with a Democratic candidate asking him how he felt about (the party) loosing the Senate race in Florida and some house seats. He basically expressed his obvious disappointment and said they continue to remain hopeful. This question was a big softball, and there was nothing else to follow, which is all I caught of an interview.
Out of the message I heard from the panelists on CNN, I did hear a consistent Democratic message, and a consistent Republican one. The D’s said that the reason for the economic troubles was George Bush, and that Obama has actually made some improvements in that we are creating jobs. The R’s were saying though that it’s not about Bush, and that it’s about the country’s disapproval of what Obama has done with the stimulus and health care. It was interesting and almost comical at times to hear them argue like they did on national television, but expected I suppose.
If I was the producer of CNN I do not know how much I would change. It was lively with the debates, and the updates were presented in a clear and technologically advanced manner. Overall it was pretty interesting to watch.
Michael Conti
November 2, 2010 at 8:55 pm
MSNBC
The different people sitting on the panel were Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Lawrence O’Donnell, and Eugene Robinson. They interviewed people like Howard Fineman from the Huffington Post, Ed Schultz, Michael Isikoff a news investigative reporter, candidate Michael Bennet, and Tim Kaine who is a Democratic supporter.
During the hour I watched on MSNBC, the people on the panel spoke about how the Tea Party in the Senate is going to challenge the Republican Party. Also, that 45% of Indiana supports the Tea Party and is switching back to a red state. A big topic of discussion was Rand Paul, who is one person in the House who keeps saying no and wants to be contray to others. Rand Paul is a Republican from Kentucky and Ed Schultz believes he will be sending a message to the Obama administration. Tim Kaine said,“the house scenario for democrats is their going to lose seats.”
Michael Bennet spoke on how he believes the Democrats are winning votes the old fashion why by going door to door and not having big expensive campaigns. Michael Isikoff stated that if the Republicans win they will owe their victory to these expensive campaigns. Other topics included people voting against Democrats simply to oppose Obama, immigration issues, deficit and spending, as well as climate energy.
I defiantly saw a optimistic attitude from Democrats. They seemed to be holding on to hope that they would get votes from the Republicans loosing seats to Democrats in the same way they would loose seats to Republicans. I also got the idea that both parties we’re being affected by the Tea Party.
I believe that the questions asked by the journalists were not very tough. All of the people being interviewed, including Senator of Colorado, Michael Bennet, was able to answer each question easily. Chris Matthews asked him, “What ‘s the number one single iscolated reason why you should get out of the house and vote?” Bennet’s responded by saying, “I would say is that the guy that I’m running against supported the exact same spot that put us in the ditch in the first place.” He then went on to explain why he should is a better position to win. Then Matthew’s asked, “Who is your hero,” where Bennet responed, “Abraham Linchon.”
When Democrat Tim Kaine was interviewed, his questions were a littler tougher but still on the softer side. They included, what do you think the President will say tomorrow, what do you think is the natural setting of the American people, and do you think issues like immigration can be delt with when our President is a moderate progressive?
These questions defiantly helped me to understand the key points of the race. When the journalists were asking questions it was much easier to understand rather than the back and forth talk about different states. There was not a lot of tension between the journalists and the individuals they interviewed. Ed Schultz for example seemed very friendly with the interviewers by laughing at points and talking very calmly with the interviewers. Where as with Tim Kaine, Chris Matthews talked over him a little bit and when he did not answer a final question, “What is your number?” the interviewers seemed put-off.
If I were the producer of the hour on MSNBC, I would defiantly make it a little easier to follow. Because of the several people at the panel it became very hard to follow the intense back and forth talking about the information on policies and issues. Because so much information was being thrown out at the same time, along with many different candaidates names and states, the coverage became overwhelming. At some points people were interrupting and then pictures would pop up of the newly projected winners. When returning back to commentators at the desk, another topic would be started and it would start all over.
Although I do think debates are entertaining, I would focus more attention on the interviews being given and less on the personal opinions that we’re given. Rachel Maddow defiantly enforced a lot of her own opinion along with Chris Matthews. While this was interesting at some points, I would have liked to see more interviews with the candidates themselves.
Jena WIlson
November 2, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Steven Ortepio
CNN
I Watched Cnn from 8 to 9. Like many people said before, Anderson Cooper along with the “best political team on television was ever present. At around 8:30 the news team said they were realizing their predictions that “republicans would have a good night” was becoming a reality. Donna Brazile made it a point to highlight states where african americans were running. Generally speaking the team thought the close races would be won by republicans.
CNN projected John Boozemen would be elected to senate from Arkansas and then sounded off several more projections on various states. During this time many of the polls around the eastern half of US had been closed. Then James Carville said he believed that west Virginia would be key for the republicans and was waiting on the results of that election. Shortly after CNN projected that West Virginia was won by the democrats.
The Republican message seemed to be that they were confident that they would win control of the senate and wanted the house as well. The democrat message was that senate would be a hard to win but thought that they were going to win the house.
The questions journalists asked to representatives of the democratic and republican party weren’t too challenging. Most were asked the stereotypical questions such as: “what is your prediction for this race” and so on. If I were a producer I wouldnt change much during this hour. It was an interesting time to watch because all the polls were closing so much of the news was just projections and very straightforward.
Steven Ortepio
November 2, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Meagan Plichta
CNN – Election Night in America
Anderson Cooper led the discussion for the hour. The guests included Donna Brazile, Ronald Martin, George Pataki, Soledad O’Brien, Candace Crowley, Bill Bennett, Paul Begala, and James Carville. As the polls closed, they jumped from topic to topic, depending on who the projected winners were. A big topic was the race of the winners. One state elected their first black female to the Senate while some others elected their first black candidate, period. Linda McMahon’s history with the WWE was also discussed. Begala claimed that her involvement in the WWE did in fact hurt her campaign and contributed to her loss. They kept bring up the hanging chads from the 2000 Bush/Gore race when talking about Florida. I thought that was a little strange considering it is now 2010 and whatever problems they had should be fixed by now. The possibility of Pelosi losing power was also discussed.
There were not a lot of interviews in the hour I watched. I am not sure if the program would have benefited from having more interviews. I enjoyed the way the roundtable discussion flowed. Each guest was able to articulate their point without too much resistance from their opposition.
One of my favorite parts of CNN’s coverage was the maps they used. They compared the projected wins on the map to the party distribution before the election. It was interesting to see the colors change when they flipped back and forth between the too. The visual made it easier to follow which party was winning where.
I thought the program ran smoothly. They did jump around a lot but I think that was because the results were still coming in. They tended to change topics whenever a new projection was announced, which is understandable. Overall, I thought the coverage was fair.
Meagan Plichta
November 2, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Jenna Glass
CNN 7 p.m. – 8 p.m.
Anderson Cooper was asking questions to a panel of analysts such as Eliot Spitzer, William Bennet, Donna Brazile, etc.. They were discussing what the possible reasons were for the turn of support for Obama in the last 2 years. Throughout the hour Wolf Blitzer was showing the projections of winners (such as Ohio’s Senator Rob Portman (R) and Delaware’s Senator Chris Coon (D)). There was some discussion about the economy and how that might be tied into the decline of Obama’s approval rating because nobody seems to like (“hate” was the word that was used) his proposals to help stimulate the economy. The democrats are prepared to lose the House of Representatives, but they cannot lose the Senate. Republicans want both the House and the Senate.
I think Anderson Cooper asked some good and thought-provoking questions. They all got heated, and while I do think that’s good (even though this is news, it does make for more entertaining TV), I also felt that there were far too many people on the panel. At times, they were talking over each other and it was a bit confusing. If I were producing this segment, I think I would have opted for less people on the panel. Maybe it was just me, but it became a little overwhelming to listen to them all, even though they each brought different views and interesting observations to the table.
Jenna Glass
November 2, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Lindsay Czajka
MSNBC
During the hour on MSNBC many different things were discussed. Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Eugene Robinson discuss with each other the financial problems we are going through as a country, each candidates chances along with the general standings. They talk about Ohio, Colorado and Virginia in excess during this hour. Most of the time during interviews the host is Keith Olberman.
Specifically for Ohio, Ed Shultz discusses with Keith Olberman if Strickland wins the governor’s chair the democratic party would have that as well as the auditor of the redistricting table so that the Republicans would not have control of redistricting Ohio. For Colorado, Olberman interviews incumbent Michael Bennet, a Democrat. Bennet has faith in the democrats and believes they will have won it the old fashioned way. Olberman asked Bennet what is one reason Democrats should get out now and vote before the polls close and his response was the fact that Buck(R), his opponent, wants to re-enable old policies for education and cut taxes for billionaires leaving the middle class to fend for themselves. The five analysts discuss whether the Republican party will take control of the house as expected. Olberman also interviewed Howard Fineman, another MSNBC political analyst. None of Olbermans questioned ever seemed too difficult for any of his interviewees to answer and each interview seemed tension free except for when Fineman was dancing around a question of numbers. However, when Chris Matthews discusses discretionary spending and cuts with Marsha Blackburn a Republican they are screaming over each other, disagreeing with everything the other is saying.
The questions Olberman asked were very informative and helped give the subjects a chance to explain their points of view without putting too much pressure on them. During the interviews of the Democrats there was a common theme of hope. While the Republican party is expected to take majority, Democrats feel confident that they will be able to take some currently Republican seats away from the GOP.
If I were the producer of this hour of coverage I would change the format of the table of people, at times they were screaming over one another trying to make points that were undecipherable to the viewers. Another change I would make would be to have the names of every person speaking and a short background information on that person up for the entire time that person is speaking so that viewers that are not as educated on politics can be better informed and not feel overwhelmed.
Lindsay Czajka
November 2, 2010 at 9:00 pm
I watched CNN:Politics from 7:30-8:30. They spoke about the conservative democrats who won the 2006 elections and how the democrats distance themselves from Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, how they are trying to make it about Obama but you cant just read about him.The team of political analysts spoke back and forth of how shocking and what a battle and turn this election is going to be from the Democrats to the Republicans. The consistent message sticking out was how important this was for Republicans and how the Democrats were prepared to loose the house but needed to keep the majority seats for the Senate. Around 8 o clock the raw exit polls projected Delaware, Chris Coons and Florida, Marco Rubio who won the Senate race and how important New Hampshire was for Kelly Ayotte to win.The panel of analysts and commentators had an even amount of Democrats and Republicans involved including former governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer.The democrats anticipating the lose seemed to keep it low key with remarks and comments even when the lady commented on South Carolina and how it was significant moment because of the first African American Republican to win they seemed to go at her at first being a democrat although she was speaking of an important moment for Republicans she even remarked that she knew to keep it low key. I think the panel could have done a better job at taking turns speaking because all seemed to go off at once on certain subjects. Several of the topics and arguments being brought up were pretty rough but over all i think they all handled it in a well mannered approach.There didnt seem to be to many journalist interviews which is something i would have changed about the coverage if i was the producer. I think the audience would like to hear more from the Senators and individuals within the house and there thoughts and comments on the election more than just hearing the panels arguments.The discussions were scattered and moved very quickly on to the next topic which made it a bit difficult to keep up and understand what was happening.
Amanda Treacy
November 2, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Well being the poor, working college student I am, I tuned into PBS’s News Hour.
The first 15 minutes or so was a panel discussion between David Brooks of the New York Times, Political Columnist Mark Shields, and the show’s anchor Jim Lehrer. This discussion was mostly a cursory breakdown of the important/close races across the country.
Nevada, for example, was highlighted next, when they went live to a correspondent in the Harry Reid Center in Las Vegas, where according to the reporter, the feeling was that “Nevada needs its powerful Senate majority leader to protect the state’s interests.” Next, there was a breakdown of this election season’s ad cycles. Citing both the frequency, and overwhelming negativity of said ads, it was discussed that this has been the most expensive election in that regard. Comparisons were drawn to Swift Boat ads about John Kerry.
The anchors then went to correspondents who were live at each party’s headquarters. It seems that both parties chose to remain calm, in light of the fact that the country isn’t in the best state at the moment, and that there were so many close races. Being celebratory in such a national climate being seen as disingenuous.
The remaining 20 minutes or so highlighted those races that were either close or an upset. Virginia’s 5th district, for example, was one of the country’s most highly contested races, in which Republican Robert Hurt unseated Tom Perriello. They then commented that Ohio’s senate race was incredibly close and that it may come down to a recount.
The entire hour was simply commentary, either from in studio anchors or correspondents in the field. Therefore there were no questions asked of anyone really. As for a party slant, the program remained refreshingly neutral, commenting on both sides of each race objectively. As for what I would change, I think that I would add some small interviews with party personnel, either actual candidates, chairmen, or the like, if only to get a sense of each party’s perspective on this momentous race.
Colin Foley
November 2, 2010 at 9:11 pm
CNN- Election Night in America
This hour CNN made predictions regarding who they believed would win and what would happen if Democrats took control of the House as well as what would happen if Republicans took control of the House. The show was mainly hosted by Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper, but it was centered on a panel of political correspondents who offered their opinions, concerns, and predictions. The panel consisted of: Candy Crowly, Chief Political Correspondent; Soledad O-Brien, Special Correspondent; William Bennett, CNN Contributor; Mary Matalin, Republican Stratgist; in addition to Erick Erickson, Kathleen Parker, and John King.
There appeared to be a general concensus among the panelists that the voters were driven by anger at the policies of the Obama administration, particularly those on healthcare and the economy. David Gergen states that Americans are fundamentally upset with the way everything is going and that people desire change. One of the Democratic correspondents stated that she was curious whether the people who voted for Obama in Illinois will get out and vote during this election or if they decided to stay home.
Anderson Cooper asked the panelists why they thought candidates were not aligning themselves with the President. William Bennett said that many people do not like the policies that the Democrats have been creating , and that he hopes they keep it up so that there will be more seats available for Republicans in 2012. Erick Erickson, stated that people just hate everything that is going on in D.C. and that people are not just against Nancy Pelosi and President Obama; they just want to see change. Kathleen Parker, on the other hand, states that it is a referendum against Obama’s policies because his approval rating is declining in relation to the stimulus bill and the health care debate. There seemed to be a general concensus among the correspondents that Obama is not to blame for the poor economic state, but that he may not be doing the right things in terms of policymaking.
Toward the end, Wolf Blizter analyzed raw exit poll data. He explained that the voters are asked a series of questions after they vote, including who they voted for, in order to gain better insight as to who might win the race. Several of the panelists stated that this is very inaccurate information. It is then announced that many polls will close at 8:00PM including Florida, Connecticut, Alabama, and Massachusetts. The hour concludes with a speech from Jim DeMint who has just won the Republican seat in the Senate for South Caroline, followed by a speech from Nancy Pelosi, who was praising President Obama for leading the nation in a new direction.
If I was the producer, I would have included more opinions from the actual voters. Since there were already representatives asking voters questions after they voted, it would be nice to hear what they actually had to say.
Donnalyn Robles
November 2, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Daniel Rogers
CNN
During the hour I watched CNN’s coverage on election night, I tuned in during the middle of a panel discussion moderated by Anderson Cooper. On the panel were mostly CNN journalists and contributors, including Soledad O’Brien, Kathleen Parker, Elliot Spitzer, William Bennett, Candy Crowley, Erick Erickson, Campbell Brown, Nancy Grace, Roland Martin, and James Carville, a Democratic strategist, and Mary Matalin, a Republican strategist. There were two interviews with Tim Kaine, the DNC chairman, and Michael Steele, the RNC chairman, as well as live coverage of Nancy Pelosi speaking.
On the panel, I didn’t hear a consistent partisan message, mainly because I felt the discussion was at times hard to follow and unorganized. There were so many people on the panel, and the discussion moved so quickly. I did notice that the people on the panel who seemed to be conservative-leaning stressed that voters are angry with Obama and the Democrats for healthcare reform, the stimulus, and the economy. A theme I heard repeatedly by people on the panel who appeared to be liberal were that Americans aren’t concerned with healthcare, but with jobs, and that those responsible for the economy are Wall-Street bankers, not the Democrats. The conversation turned to race, with Soledad O’Brien bringing up the Latino vote. She said that Democrats have realized that the administration’s failed immigration reform has hurt them. Nancy Grace argued that because of healthcare and the fear of Medicare cuts, senior citizens have turned against Obama. There seemed to be a group agreement that the GOP is gaining the Latino vote. It was mentioned that there are 38 African Americans running for congressional seats in the GOP, and there could be one of the most diverse Republican parties in the House since Reconstruction. Most of the coverage, however, consisted of CNN reporter Wolf Blitzer making CNN projections about which candidates won. There was a clip of Nancy Pelosi speaking at the Democratic Party headquarters, stressing that “we are not going back to the failed policies” of the Bush administration.
The questions asked by the journalists were not tough. Anderson Cooper only asked a couple questions in the hour I watched the panel discussion, and they were very basic, topic-starting questions, such as, “what do you think about this candidate.” When Wolf Blitzer interviewed DNC chairman Kaine, the questions he asked were also very basic, “what do you think of these results,” type questions. The reporter who interviewed Michael Steele threw in an unexpected question at the end of her interview, asking Steele if he was going to run again for RNC chairman in the next RNC elections, to which he said he doesn’t know. I think the panel discussion helped to highlight the key issues in the races. There wasn’t tension in the panel discussion, but at times it got hard to listen to because I felt the discussion wandered off occasionally, and each person speaking rapidly.
If I were the producer of the hour I watched, I would make the panel discussion more focused, and maybe have less people on the panel. There were probably around 15 people total on the panel, which made it confusing. Also, I would’ve gotten more people who were not from CNN. The faces seen were all familiar, and I think it would’ve been better to get more people from certain candidates’ campaigns to join in the panel. I would also set more specific questions for the panel to discuss, and allot each member a certain amount of time to talk, to make it more focused. Also, I would have shown more coverage and interviews from campaign workers, and footage of candidates speaking. I also would have liked to see profiles of certain candidates, since I wasn’t familiar with some of the candidates mentioned.
Daniel Rogers
November 2, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Meghan Moore
CNN
I watched CNN for a few hours of election coverage. I watched when the polls were open, when they were closing and when they were finally closed. There were many predictions being made for both the house and senate seats and a lot of speculation over who would win the election. When I was watching, the Republican Party was winning the house while the Democratic Party was winning the senate. Some of the states were announcing the winners and there was coverage of that.
Before the polls were closed, John King used a digital map to play out different scenarios if different people won the house and senate seats. There was a combination of journalists, political analysts and even former politicians on a panel discussing what was going on. There wasn’t much hostility on the panel but a few snickery remarks. The winners were talking about how happy they were and how they felt their victory was critical. I gained an understanding over the importance of each race. If I was a producer, I would try to also get opinions from voters to add to the election coverage.
Meghan Moore
November 2, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Islam
Fox News Channel’s Election Coverage 8-9 PM
A Fox panel of various reporters and analysts cover the elections. They started with some mind numbing display about polls and percentages. They moved on to a panel discussion with Karl Rove, Brit Hume, Joe Trippi, and Juan Williams. Trippi made a good point regarding how localizing races would be helpful for the Democrats (as we read for one of our assignments) while Williams dodged a question about Marco Rubio’s potential presidential candidacy (probably because there is no potential). Bill O’reilly came on and the first thing he did was call a congressman a “pinhead”. He then made the claim that the elections tonight are all about Obama. This lead to a series of Obama questions from the hosts. His segment was followed by another series of numbers and polls. O’reilly came back on to answer some questions about Virginia then proceeded to insult Obama’s economic performance as well as MSNBC’s intelligence.
I learned very little from the hour I observed. The constant poll and statistic interruptions were annoying. I doubt that the majority of the viewers retain the numerical data. I felt like I was watching a superbike race. The audience gathers around to listen to announcers exclaiming, “This guy is in the lead!” and, “That one is most likely to win!” Yet everyone knows that a clear winner will emerge soon enough; thus making the minute by minute commentary not only unnecessary, but of little consequence. There was no tension between the hosts and anyone on the panel. This is probably due to the fact that they were all right leaning Republicans. The questions were general in nature and not really too in-depth or analytical.
I did enjoy listening to Bill O’Reilly. He has mastered the art of answering seemingly innocent questions while simultaneously insulting those whom he does not agree with. He did make an excellent point regarding Obama, the economy, and tonight’s elections. The host mentioned how Democrats would argue that the poor economy is inherited and not Obama’s fault. O’Reilly stated that the presidency is a “performance” job. Regardless of any pre-existing problems, the President’s job is to perform well and fix things. Obama has not performed. He admits that perhaps four years in the future things might be different. However, the elections are tonight and the people want to change things tonight. I thought that was a good question from the host as well as a good answer from O’Reilly.
I’m not certain if I would really change much if I were the producer for the hour. One thing I would do differently is decrease the amount of time wasted in statistics and projections. Though this onslaught of numbers may be useful to some people, I do not think that the majority of the American viewers really pay attention to the dozens of numbers being displayed on the screen. In Fox’s defense, all of the other stations do the same thing. I watched an hour of MSNBC and most of the show was also a barrage of meaningless (to me anyway) statistics. I can see why. The networks like to boast about their “all night election coverage”, and it would be difficult to deliver an entire night of coverage without a great deal of fillers. Still, I would have liked to see more questions like the one O’Reilly tackled (above) and less statistics about who is happy, who is sad, and who needs more money.
Islam
November 2, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Matthew Parris
CNN – 7:30 – 8:30 PM
I watched CNN from 7:30 to 8:30. Many of the main issues brought up over the hour involved the predicted mass change of majority lead from Democrat to Republican, results from poll closings and exit poll predictions, issues with the economy and unemployment, tea party wins and losses, and finally some dialogue on the ethnic diversity of new cadidates.
Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper hosted interviews and moderated the panel discussions. The panel was made up of various political analysts from different parties. It seemed that most of the analyst were Democrats and a few Republicans. The panel was entertaining to watch because the conversation became quite heated at times. The panel especially disagreed on causes for recent economic hardships for Americans. Other people discussing the election were the Democratic national committee chairperson, Tim Kaine and video from Nancy Pelosi.
The message from the Democrats and Republicans seemed pretty consistent. The host were pretty consistent in saying the troubles that the Democrat party faces tonight with the high possibility of losing the Senate and the House. With different polls coming in during the hour, interviews confirmed the basic notion that Democrats would be losing ground over the next few hours. Republicans seemed confident that they have a good chance to win. Over the hour the reports confirmed many Democratic states had in fact changed to Republican control.
Overall the questions raised brought up simple topics and were not to deep. Questions about the economy just stirred into argument and didn’t really give the story behind it’s purpose during this election. I noticed a lot of tension between the interview with Michael Steele when asked about the chance he runs for candidacy in 2 years.
As the producer, I would make the graphics easier to read. The scrolling numbers on the bottom of the screen were very confusing. It constantly switched back from Senate to House and was not easy to keep up with. Also they could have explained what the numbers represented better. Many people might have not known they stood for the number of seats needed for majority, and also were the number of seats won at different times. Overall the coverage had depth and was interesting to watch.
Matthew Parris
November 2, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Liz Matakevich
MSNBC
During the hour of the election race that I watched, I noticed some key points that were discussed. One of them was how Obama would react to the balance of power in the Senate and the House of Representatives. They were discussing how his strategy would change if it would at all, and how it could be a potential challenge for him. They also discussed voters’ frustrations with the voting system which included some technical difficulties with some of the machines that had to be fixed, and also the voting process in general. The main discussions came from who the projected winners were in each state and what change is coming with the winners. Many of the east coast polls closed halfway through while I was watching so it was interesting to hear what was going on in those states with the final moments of the campaign and also who the projected winners of those states were as the results were coming in to the news station.
Another main discussion point I heard during the hour I watched was the amount of campaign funds that were spent in order to win the election. Many of the analysts were looking at how much was spent on the campaign opposed to who the winners were and there seemed to be a correlation with the candidates who spent more money and who won the elections in their states. The people who were discussing all of this on MSNBC was mainly the journalists and analysts along with some incoming phone calls from campaign and party officials and small interviews from some of the candidates. The consistent message that I heard from the Democrats was that they wanted to focus on education and work for the people, taking them forward instead of going back to old policies that the Republicans are supposedly trying to push. The consistent message of the Republicans seemed to be cutting federal spending and reducing the role of the government along with working on education. They also seem to want to increase jobs for the middle class.
I felt like most of the questions asked by the journalists were tough, even at times coming off as being aggressive towards some of the candidates in the way they questioned them. There definitely seemed to be some tension at times with the way the questions were asked to some of the candidates. They asked the questions that seemed like what the people would most want to hear as well even though they came off as being tough. I definitely was able to understand what the key points of the race were and what direction each party wanted to go in. Some of the questions that were being asked seemed to just have been asked to make fun of some of the candidates though which I didn’t like. If I was the producer of the hour I watched, one of the main changes I would make in the coverage would be to hear from some of the candidates a little more before the polls closed so they could get one final say to get the voters out voting and get their point across. From the couple of candidates that I did see I liked hearing what they had to say in the final moments before the polls closed and to see what was going on in their states. Another thing I would change would be to not have the journalists and analysts talk about things that had no relevance to the election as I heard a few things during the hour that I watched.
Elizabeth Matakevich
November 2, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Joe Alvaro
Fox News Channel
I watched from 8 – 9 p.m., so at the time, a lot of the election results were starting to trickle in. For the most part, the entire broadcast centered on the rising number of Republican victories around the country, with the lead anchor being almost the only voice for about the first 15 minutes or so of the broadcast. After that it switched to a series of acceptance speeches, all republican, and all preaching a feeling of cooperation between the parties. After the next round of poll closings, the broadcast switched to analysis.
A number of politicians and journalists were involved in the analysis, including Britt Hume, Karl Rove, and Sarah Palin. The questions tossed their way seemed to be very soft; there wasn’t much in the way of hardball being played just yet. There was only a series of simple “what does this mean?” questions. There was almost no democratic input at all either, just republicans, on both the analysis end and the election end.
One thing that really shocked me was how closely the coverage seamed to resemble sports coverage. It was almost like watching MLB network and getting the look in at all the live games, there was that kind of intensity (and graphics power) used on it. It was all made very visual, which I guess was a good thing, because it grabbed viewers attention, however the gigantic score board across the bottom got to be distracting after a while.
One thing I would really like to change would be I would like to see the input from both sides, including the losers of individual elections. I feel like that would add a lot to the coverage, and give us a clearer picture of how this is affecting both parties.
Joe Alvaro
November 2, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Dennis Beardsley
NJN
The coverage that was provided during the hour was based on the midterm elections specifically in New Jersey. The three districts that are of a focus in New Jersey are the 3rd, 6th, and the 12th districts. For each district, the main anchor gave some background information on the race and then sent it to live reporters who then went into further detail on their respective subjects.
In the 3rd district the race is democrat incumbent John Adler against republican Jon Runyan. The reporters discussed how Runyan is questioning Adler’s voting trend when he was in office. They also mentioned how Burlington County was important for Adler’s race, without it Adler might lose.
In the 6th district it is democrat Frank Pallone against republican and tea party activist Anna Little. Pallone’s campaign stated that in his political ads that Anna Little is too extreme for the people where Little called Pallone an elitist. The low voter turnout in Plainfield might hurt Pallone and Little’s supporters believe their campaign has a chance to win because of the grassroots (knocking on doors) way of gaining supporters. In the 12th district it is democrat Rush Holt against republican candidate Scott Sipprelle.
Dennis Beardsley
November 2, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Sevinc Nuralis
Predictions
Victory for Republicans in the House; 222 Republican: 180 Democrats;
Democrats will retain majority in the Senate. 46: 35
Sevinc Nuralis
CNBC Midterm Election Coverage Night
8:30-9:30pm
Making tough choices that make people applaud and tough choices that make people unhappy. If you really listen, they may not agree but they respect the process. You’ve got to explain to them why you’ve got to cut here and there. I don’t think Republicans are going to be able to override the detail. Healthcare reform questions that need to be addressed. Impact on the balance of power.
Democratic party- Governor of W. Virgina holding seat. Republicans really needed it to get the Senate. Good sign for Democrats. House races haven’t been talked about so far. Republicans may be having a good night. VA house district 9, Rick Boucher is significantly down. It is a bad sign for Democrats to hold down the house for Democrats.
Results were discussed as they had it on polls on CNBC.com: huge majority are voting for defense. There was a lot of discussion and emphasis on ordinary people in the audience. They were asked “where would you make cuts in spending right now?”. Across the board cuts need to be made was the reply along with get out of Afghanistan. Interviewing audience generally had a pessimistic tone. “I’m fed up” was the response from the unemployed people. It was claimed that if Republicans take over the house, it’s going to be a disaster for working families. Right afterwards, they talked about disappointment with Obama.
Innovation, clean tech, and jobs are hot topics discussed. If this shifts toward the Republicans does play out, it would be good. Senate failed to take up clean tech regulation nationally. Creating green jobs in California was talked about. Order, not tax cuts, create jobs was a point that was argued.
Tea Party Movement representative spoke and talked about the push and pull that was going on. He argued that you can’t let taxes get higher because people want to hold on to their money. We need to find restraint and control over spending and try to be honest about our growth for GDP to get the deficit for the upcoming year and then prioritize afterwards. Everything should be open for inspection and cuts.
The representative said not to underestimate the Tea Party movement arguing that we have a spending problem and we need to cut spending. If we start raising taxes on this economy now, we will we need to reenergize economy but cutting spending.
All the votes are counted: Republicans have taken over control overt the House; 236:199. It is going to change rest of Obama’s presidency. The analysts and journalists believe that compromise is necessary to get anything done. White House needs to be moved to the center to get re-elected and should take it as a message from the people to the President. Tea Party wants deep cutting in spending across the board. They have analysts refuting it. They will rise as a third party. The momentum of Tea Party is a huge factor and theme in tonight’s voting. If these numbers hold, it projects a gain of 58 seats for Republicans. An argument made against this is that this happened with President Clinton but he made compromises and won re-election.
By this point, the night is not over until the votes are counted but they feel encouraged. He sees it as a victory for the American people, not just the Republican party. He claims that there needs to be a return back to limited government, free market economics, reform, etc. No compromise is what this analysts stands for. Republicans aren’t looking for agreement for agreement’s sake and are claiming that we can do better than this massive bureaucracy through putting the fiscal house in order since we’re tired of the runaway spending under both parties.
Howard Dean: “with the economy that Bush left, your children will not be self-sufficient” as a refute to a Republican analyst. The Senate will always be difficult since there is minority rule. The House likely to change hands and so Obama’s strategy has got to change. Given the politics now, it is a necessary trait. It’s time to cut spending and not raise taxes. We can grow the economy. The government needs to curb its appetite in spending and government is too big.
It was an intense back and forth bickering between the two party representatives and analysts. It was intense coverage. I believe that there’s going to be compromise. The president would like to move the country forward but it isn’t going to happen without it. This coverage gave the illusion that it was a bit more lenient with the Republican view. However, they did somewhat balance these views with rebuttals. I would have definitely have had this coverage be a bit more calm and not as fast as it went because it was hard to catch the ideas of all the speakers. It was, indeed, balanced coverage because it represented all ideas. The questions weren’t too tough but they were definitely going at it with differing views. Nothing of great substance came out of the hour. I don’t believe that conclusions were reached.
Sevinc Nuralis
November 2, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Morgan Sun
CBS
There was a lot of things mentioned. For one, reporters were discussing the two out of three victories for the tea part republicans, and specifically Rand Paul. Some feel this will further complicate the senate. They also talked about the campaigns, noting there have been more gun ads, especially from Democrats. Christine O’Donnell’s campaign slogan “I’m Not a Witch” actually hurt her chances.
In addition, Nancy Pelosi’s lose might mean her retirement from politics. The GOP are predicted to win more than the 218 seats for the House of representatives. They are achieving this by winning seats from states all over the country. Giving control of the house to the Republicans may reverse all the work the Democrats made in 2006 and 2008. The only good news for the Democrats is that they will hold onto control of the Senate.
Morgan
November 2, 2010 at 10:07 pm
From 7:00 to 8:00 pm, I watched CNN for coverage on the mid-term elections. During this hour, the main individuals on the program were Wolf Blitzer discussing projections and the numbers of the elections, and Anderson Cooper talking to a panel of approximately 10 individuals. Of this panel were Senior Political Analysts, Political Contributers, Democratic Strategists such as James Carville, Radio talk show hosts, CNN Contributors such as Erick Erickson and Eliot Spitzer. During this panel discussion, Anderson Cooper hit on some very interesting points that brought about discussion among the panel. They discussed exit polls, the importance of Joe Manchin in West Virginia, the economy, the lack of support from Barack Obama’s own party, and so on. Many of these discussions became heated with Anderson Cooper pushing the program to commercial while the panel was still arguing as the commercial faded in.
On the other side of the set was Wolf Blitzer discussing the numbers, numerous poll closes, projections, and etc. Blitzer discussed Indiana and the GOP’s strategies of the state, the closures of North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia at 7:30pm and the closures of 15 states plus Washington D.C. at 8:00pm. Blitzer explained how CNN does not make projections until all polls are closed, but after the 8:00pm closure, CNN was able to project Chris Coons (d) winning the Senate race in Delaware, Maro Rubio (r) winning the Senate race in Florida, Kelly Ayotte (r) winning New Hampshire’s Senate race, Richard Shelby (r) easily winning in Alabama, and Barbara Mikulski (d) the projected winner in Maryland. The panel then added about the Florida election that Rubio got 62% of the Latino vote which one analyst claimed could be directly contributed to Obama’s immigration policies.
Overall, I heard very consistent messages from the Democratic and Republican analysts on the panel being questioned by Anderson Cooper. These questions were not necessary tough questions, but they definitely yielded some heated debates among the ~10 panelists. However, if I were the producer of the show, I would have definitely had a smaller panel discussing the mid-term elections. Some of the debates were overwhelming trying to get everyone’s opinion and it was very awkward trying to get Anderson Cooper to get to commercial while the panel was still going on. Other than that, the production value of the program was high enough that I had no other complaints.
Bill Martin
November 2, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Santiago Melli-Huber
CNN
I watched from 7:00-8:00, as some polls on the East Coast were closed and others were closing, but few results were released. John King and Wolf Blitzer went back and forth on magic boards, discussing possible outcomes. Because there was so little to say about exit polls and before hard results were release, they had to fill up time with speculation and speeches by politicians. In addition, CNN did what they did best: putting together an enormous panel, led by Anderson Cooper. The panel consisted of CNN host Eliot Spitzer, Democratic strategist Paul Begala, anchor Soledad O’Brien, and sevel other experts who discussed possibilities for outcomes and alternate aftermaths.
Democrats often talked about strides they made in the past two years in terms of health care legislation and other landmarks. They also focus on the negative qualities of their opponents. Republicans adopted Obama’s message of change and insisted they could “clean up Congress.” The journalists didn’t question anyone outside of themselves. They mostly discussed possible scenarios. If I were the producer, I would have kept the standard day-to-day shows in place and only do cut-ins once results came in. I would also keep the graphics with the tallies on the bottom of the screen up the entire time in case people were only just tuning in.
Santiago Melli-Huber
November 2, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Hali Fliegelman
NBC
The first hour of NBC Decision 2010 projected that the Republicans will control the House of Representatives with 237 votes. They emphasized that Nancy Pelosi will no longer be the speaker for the House of Representatives, which should serve as a wake-up call to President Obama that Americans have rejected what the White House has been doing for the past 20 months. Brian Williams and a panel of journalists and political analysts including Tom Brokaw, Lester Holt, Andrea Mitchell, Mark Whitaker, Chuck Scarborough and David Gregory gave their analysis of the election. The main points stressed were the Republicans’ goal to limit constitutional government and roll back government spending dramatically, while Democratic losses are a reflection on Obama. The analysts were interested in how much responsibility Obama will take for these losses.
NBC presented the projected winners of various states, while the panel discussed the tone of the election. For the most part, political analysts and journalists alike agreed that the results reflect rage towards the economy and dissatisfaction with government. Analysts speculated what they expect of new speaker John Boehner, as there will be a lot of pressure put on him to repeal the health care plan and cut government spending. Analysts seem to think he will do his work quietly and not visibly celebrate like Pelosi did back when she became speaker. Andrea Mitchell said Republicans largely made Pelosi a target because she has been unfavorable to many Americans.
The panel also interviewed Tom Kaine, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, asking him what message he feels this election has sent to Democrats. Kaine thinks Americans are divided and want Republicans and Democrats to work together, and he defends the progress Obama has made by saying he has actually helped the GDP grow from what it was since he was inaugurated. The questions were not necessarily tough, but necessary to ask since this was the only airtime given to a Democrat to comment on the apparent losses concerning the House. There was no apparent tension in the interview. Lester Holt went on to reveal that this election had a lot of tea party supporters who consider themselves conservative and want to limit government involvement and spending. Tea party supporters may have taken away a lot of Democratic votes.
Chuck Scarborough also gave breaking news coverage of the local election in New York. There were reporters at the Cuomo and Paladino headquarters to comment on the results – with Cuomo projected as the winner. Since this wasn’t a surprise to many, the coverage just reaffirmed what everyone had already anticipated. While the coverage was very informative and gave some insight into the key points of the race, I thought it would be better if they had more interviews, especially with Democrats, to get a better reaction. I would have also liked to see candidates or campaigners interviewed, instead of just speculation from analysts and journalists. This would have expanded the perspective of the coverage quite a bit.
Hali Fliegelman
November 2, 2010 at 10:26 pm
CNN: Election Night in America 2010
I watched the election coverage from 9 to 10. The hour started off with a projection that the Republicans would win the house with at least 50 seats with the Speaker of the House being John Boehner. Republican analysts discussed how that transition will be a dramatic shift for the House since it will become more conservative. They also talked about how the Republican party will function to appeal to Tea Party Republicans. Republicans were said to be making significant gains in the Northeast where they have not before and are becoming popular in the suburban areas. There was an analysis of states that were pro-Obama at the time of his election that were now projected to go Republican. The analysts said that places that were reliably blue have now shifted to Republican due to Independents voting Republican as well. During the hour there were also live feeds of acceptance speeches and speeches from those who were defeated from Florida, Delaware, West Virginia and a few other states that were decided on who was going to the senate. The hour wrapped up with projections for the 10 o’clock hour. There were exit polls that asked how worried people were about the economy, with 89% of people thinking the economy was poor and 62% of people think the current government is going in the wrong direction and 74% of people think the federal government is not working. These exit polls accounted for why some states that were traditionally Democratic went Republican.
Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blizter were the main hosts of the program. Discussing the election were political analysts who included Eliot Spitzer, James Carville, Paul Begala, Donna Brazile, Kathleen Barker, and William Bennet.
The voice of the coverage of the election from the analysts, Blitzer, and Cooper appeared to be from a slightly Democratic stand point but the focus of the coverage during this hour was mainly on Republican issues since the hour started off with a projection that Republicans would win the House.
There were not a lot of interview questions being asked in this hour as there were in previous hours. The questions were mainly focused on exit poll results, the questions asked during those exit polls, what accounted for the shift from traditionally Democratic states to Republican states, and how the Republican party plans on accomodating Tea Party members in the House and Senate.
If I were the producer, I would have had the interviewers ask more questions that would help explain some of the exit polls so as to go in depth and provide the not-so-politically minded viewer with more general knowledge of the election issues. The previous hours had more analysis and interview questions which helped explain some of the issues but as more states closed out the polls, the focus switched to the Republican House majority.
Jessica Washkwich
November 2, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Karla Francisco
C-Span 9-10 PM
The C-Span format is distinct from other stations in that much of the coverage is live, unedited footage. The majority of the hour consisted of two live speeches, the first by Jack Conway (D) of Kentucky conceding to Rand Paul (R). The second was a victory speech by Marco Rubio (R) of Florida. Conway’s concession speech was short and gracious. He claimed during the speech that he had lost (55%-45%) due to being outspent in his campaign by a factor of 5 to 1. His primary message was one of perseverance; he insisted that we had not seen the last of him. He did not have much of a political agenda, never really referring to party affiliations. Rubio was introduced by former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush, and his speech was much longer, as it was a victory speech. To be completely honest, I did not pay much attention to Rubio because he seemed too distractingly phony. There was a very disingenuous air about him, and at the end of his speech, the song “I Gotta Feeling” by the Black Eyed Peas played, further validating my negative impression of this man.
At the top of the hour and in between the live footage, in classic C-Span format, the unnamed journalist (a blonde woman) took calls from anonymous viewers from three lines: Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Before Conway’s speech, there was a brief interview with David Hawkings, Managing Editor of CQ Weekly. The journalist questioned Hawkings about the Tea Party movement, to which Hawkings explained that those of that party “don’t want Washington suits involved.”
Between Conway’s concession speech and Rubio’s victory speech was an interview with Jim O’Sullivan, Chief Analyst from the National Journal, who was with the host of the show for the remainder of the hour. The host and O’Sullivan discussed the divisive nature of Washington today. O’Sullivan reported that he had been to the Rally to Restore Sanity this past weekend and that there, he had interviewed many older citizens who claimed that this is the most polarized political environment they have ever seen, and most of them had been through the tense politcal climate of the Vietnam War era. O’Sullivan urged Democrats and Republicans to set aside party lines and work together on infrastructure. The host interrupted O’Sullivan to report that many of the major networks had called the House for the Republicans. NBC reportedly predicted that Republicans had won 236 seats to the Democrats’ 199.
At unspecified points in the program, the phone lines would open to any viewers who wished to address seemingly any and all issues. There were callers who continued or added to the conversation, and there were others who made some very bizarre and off topic comments (one man called to announce that marijuana should be legalized immediately and rambled on incoherently for a few moments before being thanked for his input then promptly cut off).
I prefer C-Span over other networks because it is largely live footage with no spin from a commentator. The host that was on was so non-intrusive that she was not even given a name. The reporting is just about the facts without some personality attached like Bill O’Reilly to offer his opinion on it. The host was very non-confrontational with her guests and asked basic questions, which came off unbiased and impartial, if easy. Even the guests on the show were of ambiguous political parties. The calls from viewers are my favorite part of the program. They are often interesting and thought-provoking, and because they are from anonymous, regular people, their opinions are much more candid than those of a professional journalist (or at least than they should be.) More importantly, viewers’ calls are a good way to hear what the American public actually think instead of what media spin doctors want us to think. If I had my own news program, I would probably model it after C-Span’s.
Karla Francisco
November 2, 2010 at 10:36 pm
NBC Nightly News 9pm to 10pm
Coverage on the “Decision 2010” came from news anchor Brian Williams who asked questions from TV journalist Tom Brokaw, D.C. Bureau Chief Mark Whitaker, news journalist Lester Holt, and Tim Kaine of the Democratic National Committee. At this point the House Projection was Democrats 198 and Republicans 237. Republican representative, John Boehner, from Ohio is projected to replace Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. This seems to be a wakeup call to Obama and a big step forward for Republicans who will most likely focus on government spending as their big issue. Tom Brokaw summarized the mood of the election saying that American electorates are much like a “wild bull” and independent voting is driving a lot of the elections. Brokaw also said that 43% of the country no longer believes in the American dream due to miscommunication within the Obama administration. It should be interesting to see how Obama handles his news conference tomorrow. Losing the House to the opposite party gives Obama a clear, definable enemy according to Brokaw. Mark Whitaker says Boehner is pressured to roll back spending and repeal the healthcare plan. Boehner is the type to go to work quietly, unlike Pelosi, but his plan of attack will depend on Obama’s tone and the results of the Senate. Lester Holt covered the rising Tea Party activists. 87% of Tea Party activists voted Republican in their local House races. They want to reduce the budget deficit and for the next Congress to cut budget taxes. The Tea Party also talks of a “constitutional government” in which people want less from their federal government and more control themselves within the next 2 years. Tim Kaine of the Democratic National Committee says that with Democrats in the White House and a majority of Republicans it is clear America is closely divided. There needs to be a movement of collaboration with both sides working together in order to move forward. Kaine also notes that it will be interesting to see if Republicans will join in on deficit control. Another point covered was Nevada as the key race to watch.
I felt that there were a range of topics covered, including coverage from both parties. The interview questions and answers were very in depth and brought about good points and I was able to clearly understand what was being discussed. The questions asked were neither difficult or easy but rather informational. However, I would have liked to have heard from the Republican National Committee and their plan of action from here rather than just the Democratic National Committee about how they are going to deal.
Meaghan Shanley
November 2, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Robert Brownlie
FOXNews
I watched FOXNews starting at around 7pm and tuned in and out for the last three hours. What i saw discussed I found interesting. They stated that this was high stakes for Obama and his campaign slogan of “change” was on the line. They also gave updates on how Obama was spending his evening and when he will give his reaction. They discussed what they called the “symbolic seat” in Nevada between Reid and Angle, and how he could be the 1st senate majority leader to lose his own election in 50 years.
They also discussed the impact that the Tea Party has and Juan Williams pointed out that the Tea Party helps in local congressional district elections but on statewide elections they hurt the Republican Party, becasue statewide independents would favor the democratic party to far right conservatives.
The normal hosts that you see on FOXNews on a daily basis handled the coverage starting with Shepard Smith then changing over to Megan Kelly and Brett Baier. At the normal times that the opinion hosts would be on they came into studio to add to the commentary. I did catch a panel that had Juan Williams, Carl Rove, and Howard Dean’s old campaign manager.
The only candidate that I saw was the victory speech of Rand Paul the Senator-elect from Kentucky.
The consistent message that I heard from the REpublicans and was actually listed on screen was the plans that Republicans will attempt to do when they control the house. 1. Discretionary Spending. 2. Permently extend tax cuts. 3. Work on repealing Healthcare. From the Democrats what I have heard is that it has not been as bad as people originally thought and that they will continue to control the Senate.
Mostly for the night it was mostly a horserace type of reporting. There was not much questioning of candidates and if I was producing the show I would of liked to hear more reaction from candidates while they were awaiting results and what they were thinking from the early numbers, I got tired quickly watching the horserace bar at the top of the screen.
Overall, I did not mind FOXNews’ coverage, I realized the opinion hosts that were on set were on set to give their opinions and provide entertainment in a time period that can be difficult to fill between polls closing. I did find it quite interesting that as I am writing this I thought Sara Palin and Geraldine Ferraro had a very nice dialogue and a historic one at that where it was the first time they were ever on a panel together, this was a good job by FOXNews, especially since they are of different parties and different views.
Robert Brownlie
November 2, 2010 at 10:38 pm
NBC – Decision 2010 – 9-10 PM
At the beginning of the segment host Brian Williams informed the viewers that 37 states had closed and the projection for the House of Representatives was 237 to 198 in favor of republicans. Williams stated that it was a “season of angry voters” and how the Tea party was acting as a wild card in the elections.
The majority of the segment focused around a panel of NBC journalists including veteran Tom Brokaw, mediator of Meet The Press David Gregory, Savannah Guthrie, Andrea Mitchell and Mark Whitaker.
The conversation centered around Williams asking each panel member specific questions which they would answer in under a minute with no time for open discussion. Williams continuously noted that spending and healthcare were major issues for the midterm elections.
Both Guthrie and Gregory illustrated the frustration voters have with the Obama administration which is the cause for the shift in power of the House of Reps. Gregory said that “democrats are fleeing town” as Guthrie hammered away at the dissatisfaction of the public in regards to Obama. Whitaker discussed the pressure on newly appointed House Speaker John Boehner in rolling back spending and repealing Obama’s healthcare plan.
Lester Holt discussed the impact of the tea party and what they want to see after the midterm elections. According to Holt they want to greatly limit federal government, reduce the budget, and return to the constitution.
While Decision 2010 was a journalistic kaleidoscope the only political figure interviewed throughout the entire hour was Tim Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Kaine called the American public closely divided and reinforced the idea that both sides will be forced to work together which could prove positive. While Kaine was disappointed with the results in the House he remained upbeat about the Senate races.
By the end of the hour the projections for the House changed to 240-195 in favor of the G.O.P while the Senate favored democrats 45-39-2(independents).
While NBC’s production was informative their were certain aspects that as producer, I would change. First and foremost, the amount of commercial breaks became frustrating, on consecutive occasions one minute of TV time would be followed by 3-4 minutes of commercials. Secondly, I felt that the segment relied too heavily on journalists and paid no attention to political advisors, candidates, or party members. Finally, I wished they allowed the panel members to discuss amongst themselves some of the issues and outcomes. I think that one of the problems was that the panel members were all big names who were used to role of mediator rather than participant which really limited the amount of any genuine information.
Shane Brennan
November 2, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Scott Sincoff
MSNBC
During the hour I watched, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN incumbent) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) were interviewed by Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and others on MSNBC as they were discussing the eminent Republican control of the House of Representatives.
Journalists were speaking about the tax cuts that will affect the job creation within the United States. Bachmann kept on saying that the jobs in the country have to increase in order to stabilize the national economy and to lower the unemployment rates. She also said that Washington has not listened to the people and believes that will change with Republican control of the House.
Cantor spoke about the tax cuts that will be back to 2008 levels to give money back to families and small business owners. He also said that the Tea Party will be a positive influence throughout the election campaign but will make Congress a more-disciplined machine that Obama’s administration will have to adhere to. Cantor has similar views about Washington’s stance as Bachmann.
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) was talking about the key Democratic Senate and gubernatorial races and how success in Massachusetts, Illinois, Washington state and New York will help stabilize the Obama administration’s initiative to keep the majority in the Senate and Governorship. Also, he said that states with early morning voting starting before voters go to work (such as NJ whose polls opened at 6 AM) will also be a key pick-up for Democrats.
Scott Sincoff
November 2, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Michele Moreno
MSNBC
I watched an hour of MSNBC which was mainly hosted by Brian Williams. Tom Brokaw and David Gregory also contributed. They were discussing what the change in House means for the future, and also about how the democrats felt about the loss. They interviewed a couple of candidates on polling locations, such as Michele Bachmann, the Republican winner of Minnesota senate. She was very happy about her win and she said the first thing she was going do was extend the current tax policy quickly to prevent a tax increase for the next year. They also spoke with the Virginia Republican Eric Cantor, who said it was definitely time for the administration to reassess where they are at. There was a consistent message from the Democrats, saying they were disappointed about losing the house but that they needed to stay positive and the two parties need to work together in order to keep the country moving forward. The former governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Tim Kaine, who is now the chairman of the democratic national committee was also interviewed and he echoed that message. He said that the White House is moving aggressively towards deficit control and he was interested to see whether the Republicans will join in. He admitted that it was a tough night for democrats in the house. They didn’t interview as many republicans, but the general tone from the ones they did interview during this hour was excitement and positivity about where they were headed. They were in agreement about the two parties needing to work together. I thought that the questions asked were not tough enough, and that they were questions that the candidates were used to being asked over and over again during the race. They were very prepared to answer them, almost mechanically. I thought that MSNBC did a great job of helping explain key points, they were very straightforward with their words and also used helpful diagrams to show the actual majority of the senate and house. They had constant information popping up on the bottom of the screen about who was winning and the percentages. I didn’t notice any tension between the journalists and candidates. I thought the journalists did a very good job of not being biased, although democrats did get most of the coverage. If I were the producer of the hour that I watched, I would have assembled a panel of a democrat, republican, independent and an analyst. I think that would have been a dynamic and interesting conversation that could have displayed the underlying tensions that weren’t displayed through the cookie cutter questions.
Michele Moreno
November 2, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Anna Solin
MSNBC from 9-10
The discussions were lead by pundits, such as Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann. While I was watching, the Republicans gained the control of the House. The Tea Party and its influence was the main focus of the discussion while I was watching. Before the hour, Christine O’Donnell had lost the race in Delaware. Since the Tea Party seems to not want to talk to the media, MSNBC spoke to Michele Bachmann instead.
This interview seemed ineffective. Since her crowd was so large, she had trouble hearing Chris Matthews. This lead him to somewhat mock her. He said she was under a trance because her answers were scripted and repetitive. Although she is not a member, she seems to be the closest quasi-Tea Party person they spoke to.
Questions seemed to be soft-ball questions. I didn’t hear from the pundits what the winners they spoke to were going to do now that they were in office. It seems that they speak around the table to each other with better questions or statements than they do to their guests. If I were the producer, I would want to hear the future plans of the new winners and the incumbents.
I was unimpressed with this news hour. I switched to WHYY for a while because they seemed to have better interviews with the candidates. Even though this was more localized to NJ/PA/DE, I thought it was of better quality than the national election coverage. I look forward to watching the Daily Show/Colbert Report coverage later.
Anna Solin
November 2, 2010 at 10:48 pm
NBC- NY NONSTOP
Richard Blumenthal is the projected victor over Linda McMahon.
Tom Foley is also ahead of Dan Malloy. Also covered was how in Utica, a town where industries have left and has been affected by the economic recession, young people have to leave because there are no jobs. Mcmahon’s concession speech was also covered. Andrew Cuomo beat Carl Paladino and the projected house count went to the Republicans, 199 D 236 R. The Tea Party is claiming a lot of victories across country. Frank Pallone (D) beat Anna Little (R) in NJ.
Reporter spoke to a NJ Tea Party supporter. The Tea Party supporter was very confident that her party was the party to bring fiscal responsibility to America and that the TEA Party was an acronym that stood for Taxed Enough Already. Reporters and analysts took up most of the time. Prof. Lee was on 3 times in the time that I watched and he predicted that the Republicans would take the house.
Democrats and Republicans weren’t the ones delivering messages when I was watching, beside concession and victory speeches. The analysts and reporters gave information on the candidates and predicted what would probably happen later on in the night.
If I was the producer, their would be less stalling on individual candidates and less jumpy cuts. There was a lot of pressure put on reporters on the scene to keep spewing facts and analysts were often cut off.
Aaron Mazie
November 2, 2010 at 10:49 pm
I watched NJN from 8-10pm. The program had Jim Hooker, Senior Anchor and Managing Editor, monitoring election coverage throughout New Jersey. He had a roundtable of people ranging from former politicians to experts in political science. They would go live to the main headquarters of various Congressional Districts to interview campaign managers on how they thought their candidate was doing. They would also interview experts in political science on what each election meant in the big picture. The focus was on the 3rd, 6th, and 12th Congressional Districts where it seemed like the Republicans might win over the Democrats.
In the 3rd District, the Democrat John Adler is running against Jon Runyon the Republican. Two political analysts Brigid Harrison and Peter Woolley gave their views on each district telling which towns were important to the candidates in tonight’s election. The theme of Republicans winning against Democratic incumbents was repeated. Jon Runyon appears to be winning against incumbent John Adler. In the 6th District, even though Anna Little did well in early voting, Frank Pallone the Democrat won with 55% of the vote. The journalists asked tough questions, I thought. Scott Sipprelle’s representative was asked about how Mr. Sipprelle’s property taxes went down on his large house on a prestigious Princeton street. There did not seem to be any tension between the journalists and the people they interviewed. All the campaign managers seemed to have good answers to tough questions. A question was asked about the large amount of money Congressman Pallone spent compared to Anna Little, but the campaign leader said it was needed to educate the people about all the good things he did.
It looked like Mr. Sipprelle was winning over Holt but as more votes were reported Mr. Holt won. It was interesting to see the mood change at the campaign headquarters as more and more votes came in.
If I were the producer, I would have had more coverage from the local headquarters and less analysis by the Political Science people. I think people want to know who is winning, and not so much all that has happened in the past and what it might mean if the Republican is elected and not the Democrat. The questions helped me understand the issues and the main one that the Republicans seemed to stress was the economy.
Bill Hoermann
November 2, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Martha Lanzara
CNN 7:30-9:00
I watched CNN for over an hour. Because i tuned in later in the night, the talk was mainly focused on the reality that the Republicans were going to rule the house. This reality coincided with their predictions that, “republicans would have a good night.” Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer hosted interviews and controlled the panel discussions of various political analysts from different parties. The panel discussions seemed controlled, but while discussing issues of recent economic hardships, tension between parties was present. I seemed as though during these rebuttals, more analysts were democrats than republicans.
The message heard from both parties was very consistent; Cooper and Blitzer repeatedly stated trouble for the democrats with the possibility of losing the house. Questions asked during this time were not too challenging and seemed rather general. Many involved the economic status and peoples predictions for the race. During this period, more reports continuously interrupted the station with news of republican control over the house. Still throughout this time, the democrats seemed to give hope for their party while the republicans looked more relaxed and comfortable.
Overall, I thought the coverage was very well done. I enjoyed the time in which I chose to watch because throughout the hour news was coming in regarding the victorious parties. It was entertaining to watch peoples reactions from live feed. However, one thing I may have changed was to neutralize the atmosphere by presenting a relatively equal number of analysts from both parties. This may have caused a more exciting rebuttal with more viewers.
Martha Lanzara
November 2, 2010 at 11:04 pm
CBS
I watched CBS from 10pm until 11pm and they mainly spoke about the Senate elections.They explained how republicans won the House. They were reviewing who won, what party they were a part of. They also discussed the Tea party in some detail and their points of view in healthcare plans. It was mainly discussed by journalists and CBS reviewing the election overall.
I did not hear a consistent message from Democrats or Republicans, but they mainly discussed the Tea Party Movement. Political analyst John Dickerson explained how Ohio has a huge role in the presidential election with whoever wins the governor votes.The party in Ohio appears to be changing which could affect the overall presidential election in 2012. Rep. Eric Cantor discussed how he is going to use government spending and how government should spend their money. The fiscal policies will be used to maintain government expenditures and control interest rates and money supply.
Governor Cuomo, the projected winner of NY, gave a speech promising tax cuts and how proud he is going to make the people of NY. He is saying how he is going to unify New York and that they are one.
It was basically journalists asking political analysts questions on their own predictions and then they reviewed what the results were. It was unclear as to what party was going to take the senate. The republicans still needed 10 seats and the republicans gained many house seats. The tea party is making serious efforts and is advancing greatly as time progresses.
Mary Johnson
November 2, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Lisa Hwang
CBS: Election Night Coverage with Katie Couric
When I started to watch the coverage, it focused mainly on how the Republicans were doing well in the elections-a lot better than people had expected. The Republicans took control of the House (surprised many by taking so many seats) but the Republicans were having a tougher time to take control of the Senate. They kept updating on statistics on who had won what state and what areas each Party was doing well in. They also talked about the $3.26 billion spent on midterm elections.
CBS also presented a poll asking voters about their primary concerns. The economy came first, whereas the health care reform came second. The news coverage focused on the repeal of health care reform. It interviewed Congressman Eric Cantor and asked specific questions about health care reform and Katie fired counter questions that definitely made the Congressman think. Throughout this interview, CBS also included specialists’ opinions about the issues such as Jeff Greenfield.
They then talked a little bit about Sarah Palin and what her effect was during the elections. A Republican strategist’s opinion was also included and said that she would most likely act as a power broker.
The coverage was definitely great, it made me understand a lot of what was actually going on in the elections. I think Katie asked a lot of tough questions that put many of the interviewees in a tough spot. However, I think they were good questions that should have been asked and answered. I also think this coverage was good because there were many other specialists’ opinions included. I didn’t sense tension between the journalists and those who were being interviewed, but the journalists tried to cut off the interviewees a lot. If I could change anything, I would definitely try to include more Congressman interviews.
Lisa Hwang
November 2, 2010 at 11:09 pm
NJ.com
I periodically checked in on nj.com between 9-11, the majority of the night the Republicans were in the lead, projecting to take as many as 39 seats in the House; it seemed to be predicted that the Democrats were going to lose both the House and the Senate. The Republicans theme seemed to be that they would “clean up congress,” whereas the Democrats had more of a reflective period over the last two years.
Up to date Congressional results: Runyan defeats Alder in 3rd District, U.S. Rep. Rush Holt retains seat, GOP incumbent Rodney Frelinghuysen wins 11th Congressional District, U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell is re-elected, U.S. Rep. Albio Sires is re-elected, Pallone won 6th Congressional District, Donald Payne was re-elected into Congress, U.S. Rep. Scott Garret won 5th Congressional District and U.S. Rob Andrews won NJ’s 1st District.
Journalists mentioned both negatives and positives concerning the fact that two of the three tea party republican candidates won; some projected that it may further complicate the Senate, while others felt that it may add positive competition. I think that the topics/ questions in the beginning were a little soft hearted, but as it got updated there was a little more hardball.
Rachel Wall
November 2, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Ciara Copell
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart started off the show with describing who won so far. The Republicans have already taken the House, but a few democrats have maintained their seats. This coverage was informational as it reported who was winning the election, but as usual, included mostly comedic content. It didn’t feature any politicians, and almost all of the people speaking were comedians. This included Jason Jones in the “home” of South Carolina Democratic candidate Alvin Green, watching him play Madden as he found out he lost. Colbert is obviously also a comedian and he did most of the talking in his hour, but he also had a conservative columnist speak.
One of the major aspects of the Daily Show episode was showing informational polls and graphics displayed on John Oliver’s body. This, I assume, was mocking the ridiculous screens and 3D effects that major news networks use to explain the results of elections. The Colbert Report also utilized jokes on these unnecessary screens.
The featured speaker on the Daily Show was Michael Beschloss, a presidential historian. He spoke mostly about the loss of seats for Democrats and when in history it had happened before. Overall, there didn’t seem to be much of a bias in the coverage except from the audience who often booed when it was announced that a Republican won and cheered when a Democrat won. Colbert interviewed Conservative columnist David Frum. This actually discussed some of the issues of Republicans taking over the House and where the party is headed. Colbert also had the editor of The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuval, speaking about why people voted Republican and said that Obama changed once he got into the White House. This was a very interesting segment of the show.
The Daily Show actually seemed to steer away from the important issues and Stewart threw a lot of easy questions out. However, this is often what his interviews on the show are like unless it is with someone like Bill O’Reilly. Plus, the person he was interviewing was a historian, not a political figure, so there was not much to ask him about. Colbert didn’t address all of the main points of the election either, but did hit more points than The Daily Show.
If I were the producer of The Daily Show and/or Colbert Report I would address the main issues a little bit more, however there is only a half hour to get all the information out unlike the other networks who have a lot more time. Also, they have to keep it entertaining and funny, so I understand why there was stuff left out. Overall, I think they did a good job with the time they had because I learned the important stuff about the results of the election and was still entertained.
Ciara Copell
November 3, 2010 at 12:01 am
Amna Qureshi
CNN 9:45-10:45
At the start of the hour John King was talking about the shifts of senior votes from Democrat to Republican. Now 58% of seniors vote for Republicans, probably due to health care issues. Throughout the hour projections were given for both the Senate and Governor races. The projections for Senate included Roy Blunt (Missouri), David Vitter (Louisiana), John McCain (Arizona) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa). The governor races seemed to be tight. In Nevada the raw data for governor was 48% Democrat, 47% Republican. Other states also had tight governor races, including South Carolina (D-48%, R-51%) and Ohio (D-47%, R-49%). Colorado’s governor race had 53% Democrat, 37% Independent, and 9% Republican. If Colorado’s Republican party does not receive at least 10% they will not be considered a major party next time around.
During the hour journalists and analysts discussed the elections. Anderson Cooper, along with the “best political team out there” had discussions throughout the hour. The panel included Eliot Spitzer, Mary Matalin, William Bennett, Erick Erickson, Gloria Borger, Kathleen Parker, as well as a handful of other political analysts. The panel discussed various issues throughout the hour. The first thing they discussed which I watched was Obama’s email list that was supposed to get young voters out there to vote, which it failed to do. The Tea Party was a major topic that was discussed through the whole hour. Parker believes that the Tea Party is a bit naïve about what they can get done. Gloria Borger believes that the Tea Party is at some point going to have to take a stand and if that stand does not agree with the Republicans stand then they are going to have to split. Erickson believes that tea party activists don’t care what they cut, as long as they cut something. Spitzer says that no one (in the tea party) has said anything about Medicaid, medicare, or social security. He also stated as a defense that the Democratic party has announced plans for these issues and also stated that Democrats plan to raise the age of retirement. John King also gave statistics on how people were influenced by the Tea Party. 23% said they were trying to send a message to the tea party, 18% said they were against tea party and 56% said tea party did not affect them. In statistics of who is supporting the tea party, 26% of 18-29 percent support the tea party, 38% of 30-59 year olds, and 36% of those over 60.
One major point stressed throughout the hour was the dramatic Republican take over of the House of Representatives. CNN projected that republicans would have a net gain of over 52 seats in the house. Democrats are losing in many states in which Obama barely won and in states in which McCain was victorious.
Throughout the hour there was not much questioning/answering going on, it was mainly all discussion. If I were producer of the show I would have added more interviews throughout the hour. I feel that the hour I watched in particular lacked substantial discussion and interviews and was more focused on numbers and projections because I did watch at a later time.
Amna Qureshi
November 3, 2010 at 12:09 am
Elizabeth Plaugic
Politickernj.com
Politico.com
Because I don’t have a television, my election coverage was limited to what I found on these news websites. Unfortunately, most of the election coverage was contained to small blurbs and updates regarding the outcomes of the elections. At the time I looked, there was not much discussion of what the results will mean for the Obama Administration and in general.
Much of the news I read on these sites was concerned with exit polls and the fact that voters seem to be turning away from Obama and the Democratic Party. At the time of this post, the Republicans have control of the House and Democrats have control of the Senate. Several states have not been completely counted. Thus far, the GOP has gained 45 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate. The Associated Press has just predicted that the open Senate seat in Illinois will be taken by Republican Mark Kirk, which is President Obama’s old Senate seat.
I read one article that claimed one reason for the party shift in Congress was Americans’ dissatisfaction with the economy and their lack of confidence in Democrats to fix the problem. Interestingly, many incumbents lost in their respective races, which is unusual for Congress elections. Republican Jon Runyan beat incumbent John Adler in Camden County in New Jersey.
On Politico.com, I was able to watch live streaming of Josh Gerstein and Ben Smith discuss election results from the Politico newsroom. They discussed the Republican victory speeches, claiming that many were humble, calling this election a second chance for Republicans, while others were less humble, claiming to have been elected to “oppose the Obama regime.” Gerstein and Smith also discussed possibilities of White House reactions to this election and the spin they may put on it tomorrow.
Elizabeth Plaugic
November 3, 2010 at 12:29 am
Joe Nardi- Fox News
I watched Fox news This afternoon, and thought it was informative, however, a little biased. They used a mix of analysts and journalists in their programming, and even had Senator mccain on for a littlw while. Some other guests included Mike Huckabee, Peter Johnson Jr., who was there as alegal analyst due to some rumors discussing that some of the polls and voting booths already had the candidates names entered.
There was a consistant message that the Democrats need to be stopped and there was alot of discussion about how the GOP could do this. The Fox news team was also very weary of the Tea Party and Feared that they could possibly take votes away from the GOP. It was interesting because whenever they would discuss the Democrats, they would immediately follow the discussion with bad news around the world and in The U.S. regarding people dying and bombings. I believ this was done strategically because the News Team kept blaming the DEmocrats for what is going on in the world. There were also ads for conservative magazines, including the Weekly Standard.
Finally, i mentioned that they had Senator Mccain on for an interview. The host was very emphatic aout the senator answering his questions, and would not let him dodge any of them, or accept short answers. he was asked several times if he still would suppourt Sarah Palin, and he answered that he would reevaluate his allegiance closer to her election time.
Joe Nardi
November 3, 2010 at 12:31 am
MSNBC 6-7pm
At 6pm Tuesday night, MSNBC had a special with a panel of five people and interviewed a few candidates throughout the hour. The panel consisted of Keith Olberman, the host, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Eugene Robinson. Throughout the hour they discussed financial problems specifically, expectations, and current standings. Three main states that were talked about were Colorado, Ohio and Virginia.
Keith Olberman started out by asking each of the panelists a question. Chris Matthews talked about why he thinks the majority of voters will go Republican, and that is because people need someone to blame. Democrats are blamed because they currently control Congress and the Presidency, and more specifically because when President Obama raised spending and increased the deficit, he never explained it and still, people do not know why it happened. While Matthews says Obama had to do this, he lost support by not explaining why. Rachel Maddow did not have high hopes for the Democrats. She stated that a good night for the Democrats will still inevitably be a bad one because historically, they will most likely lost seats tonight. There has been no permanent campaign from Democrats this year, they did not explain what they wanted to do sufficiently. Eugene Robinson spoke about how Democrats are stuck between the concept of “too much” and “not enough.” No matter what happens to the Democrats, they will either be spending too much, or being too liberal and at the same time not spending enough or not being liberal enough. Another thing he says is that All Democrats probably agree that they wish they had done a better job on the communication front. Lawrence O’Donnell spoke about John Boehner, the Republican running for the 8th District of Ohio, and how he is going to be under pressure to present specific bills, and appeal (not amend) Obama’s healthcare law.
Twice throughout the hour, they turned to Chuck Todd for an update on the polls. He is the Chief White House Correspondent for NBC News, as well as the co-host of “The Daily Rundown” on MSNBC. He went over a few key races. Then, they went to Ed Schultz, who hosts his own show, for a bigger picture on the race between Harry Reid and Sharon Angle. He said it was neck and neck, and while Angle was true to form taking shots at journalists and being aggressive, Harry Reid had a quiet confidence today. Schultz thinks that Reid is going to surprise a lot of people, but that it is going to be a nail-biter. It depends on how many people want to save Reid his seat or how many want to see a change.
The most interesting part of the hour, in my opinion, was when they interviewed different people. While I do not think the questions were too “hardball,” they did allow me to learn more about the candidates. First, Olberman talked to Democratic Senator of New Jersey, Bob Menendez. Olberman asked if he thinks the result of the seat will become clear by tonight. Menendez said that he hopes that this becomes clear tonight, and that he thinks that everything he’s seen in polls and modeling in terms of turnout leads him to believe that the Democrats will remain the majority in the Senate. He would like to limit certain special interest groups so that the people have a say who runs Congress and not any outside groups. Next, they spoke to Democratic Representative of Maryland Chris Ban Hollen. He saw a healthy democratic turnout early on and a higher projected democratic voters: He says that this is not over for the Democrats, even though everyone in Washington thinks it is. Republican Representative Mike Pence of Indiana was the last I saw being interviewed. He claimed that no matter what happens tonight, it is not so much a victory for any American party this evening, but a victory for the American people. He feels like they’ve been struggling with a ‘tonedeaf’ Congress and are now reasserting themselves. He believe they want to send a new generation of leaders to Washington D.C. who will put personal and fiscal responsibility back into the Senate.
I really liked one question that Olberman asked, and I believe it was the hardest question of the hour. He asked Pence, “What would be your “down payment” to the Republican voters or fearful Democratic voters tonight in the first 100 days?” Pence answered by saying that nothing is more important than to get the economy moving again, and so he thinks we will see an immediate action for tax relief and for boosting the economy.
I do think the questions could have been a little harder, but as a producer I don’t think I would have changed anything because it is the day of election and everyone is nervous enough as it is. The questions may have been a little softball, but they still allowed the public to get some insight on the candidate’s ideas and I believe that it was respectful to not go so hard on them.
The panel was calm for the most part, and then towards the end a small argument arose over the tax relief issue. While everybody stayed professional, I could tell O’Donnell was trying to hold back.
I believe this hour on MSNBC was a good mix of a panel, interviews, and poll updates.
Courtney Kugel
November 3, 2010 at 12:33 am
Keith Obzut
CNN
Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer hosted tonight CNN’s coverage of the Midterm Election. From 9-10, the main focus of the hour was how a typhoon of Republicans is sweeping the House of Representatives. In fact, in the beginning of the hour, Blitzer announced that the GOP have won the House and predicted that John Boehner (R-OH) will be the Speaker the of House. Anderson Cooper then discussed it with a two-table panel with analysts from both parties, journalists, anchors and philosophers like James Carville, Mary Matalin, Eliot Spitzer, Paul Begala, Soledad O’brien, Candy Crowley and others. CNN used top-notch technology to show exit poll “Tetris like” results and the tone of people’s Tweet’s in each state map.
The Democrats talked about the all what they’ve accomplished, while Republicans said that the American people were angry about the way the country was going and made tonight historic. Tea-partiers were also on topic due to winners of Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida gave their acceptance speeches and talk about how their going to fix Congress. However, Christine O’donnell of Delaware lost, but talked how the Tea Party’s future and how they starting to become something. A big victory for the Democrats in the Senate were Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut won their seats.
They questions asked by Cooper seemed very basic and easy like, “What does this mean for…,” but that was because the results, graphics and incoming reports answered the questions. There was a lot of breaking news this hour. Everyone on the both panels just took the information that the person before them said and just paraphrased it their way.
If I was the producer of the show, I would have toned down the fancy technology. Sure it looks cool, and, but it takes away from the information being presented. There also some stupid graphs and maps like Tweet counts. I still would have used them, but minimally and interesting. Also, I don’t think we needed two panels, one with maybe a little more people would have been fine. Other than that, I think whoever produced this did a very good job because of a respected and not completely one-sided team of people and incoming news happening before their eyes.
Keith Obzut
November 3, 2010 at 1:06 am
The NBC coverage predicted that Republicans will win the house with 237 votes and also that Pelosi will lose her place as speaker of the House. They stressed how Americans are disgruntled with the Obama administration and what they have accomplished thus far since being inducted into office. Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Lester Holt, Andrea Mitchell, Mark Whitaker, Chuck Scarborough and David Gregory were the analysts/journalists who discussed the elections and their results as they came in.
Republicans stressed how they wanted to stop the massive government spending and shrink the government’s power in general. They also stressed how it would negatively reflect on Obama. Various elections and their winners/losers were flashed along the bottom of the screen. The panelists would switched between discussing the election results, overall tactics used by both sides and who will take the House and Senate. Two major topics that were discussed were anger from economic woes and health care. They also discussed how project speaker of the house winner John Boehner would do if he won.
The panel spoke on how important it is for the Republicans and Democrats to attempt to work together and establish a new era of bipartisanship in Washington. Kaine stood behind the president and all that he has accomplished thus far. They also mentioned how the Democrats lost votes to independents and the Tea Party.
Overall I wouldn’t have changed much about how they covered the election results, they had a very typical style for the modern day media coverage.
The NBC coverage predicted that Republicans will win the house with 237 votes and also that Pelosi will lose her place as speaker of the House. They stressed how Americans are disgruntled with the Obama administration and what they have accomplished thus far since being inducted into office. Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Lester Holt, Andrea Mitchell, Mark Whitaker, Chuck Scarborough and David Gregory were the analysts/journalists who discussed the elections and their results as they came in.
Republicans stressed how they wanted to stop the massive government spending and shrink the government’s power in general. They also stressed how it would negatively reflect on Obama. Various elections and their winners/losers were flashed along the bottom of the screen. The panelists would switched between discussing the election results, overall tactics used by both sides and who will take the House and Senate. Two major topics that were discussed were anger from economic woes and health care. They also discussed how project speaker of the house winner John Boehner would do if he won.
The panel spoke on how important it is for the Republicans and Democrats to attempt to work together and establish a new era of bipartisanship in Washington. Kaine stood behind the president and all that he has accomplished thus far. They also mentioned how the Democrats lost votes to independents and the Tea Party.
Overall I wouldn’t have changed much about how they covered the election results, they had a very typical style for the modern day media coverage.
Liam Mulcahy
November 3, 2010 at 1:07 am
Daniel DiMaggio
MSNBC (8 to 9PM)
The election coverage during the hour I watched consisted of projected Senate and House victories in various states and discussions of these projected results by a panel of MSNBC commentators. Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and several others took turns discussing the implications of the projected victories in states whose polls had closed early enough for the results of their elections to be predicted. The commentary of the main panel of pundits dominated most of the hour of programming, but there were several interviews featured in the hour, with MSNBC political analyst Howard Fineman, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, and Tennessee Republican congresswoman Marsha Blackburn.
Consistent with the general image of MSNBC, the commentary by the network pundits was generally left-leaning. I felt that since it is generally accepted that Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews have relatively liberal views, it is understood that they are speaking from a Democratic point of view during the election coverage, and the messages and themes of their commentary during the hour reflected this. The main theme of the commentary seemed to be that the projected election results indicated the increasing polarization of the two major political parties, a product which the pundits attributed to the Republicans and what Olbermann termed the “death of the moderate wing in the Republican party”. Maddow and Olbermann described many of the initial election results as being consequences of moderate Republicans getting “knocked out” by the “far right”, both in cases of Republican wins, where winning candidates’ more right-wing views made them popular among voters unhappy with the current administration, and in cases of Republican losses, such as that of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, where a shift to the far right within the state Republican party led to the nomination of a candidate that was less palatable to the general voting public. Olbermann, Maddow, and Howard Fineman all stressed that a similar move towards political extremism has not taken place among the Democrats. Maddow stated that “the Conservative movement is eating the Republican moderates, there is nothing like that happening on the left”, while Howard Fineman discussed how the Tea Party is aiming to create “a strict orthodoxy” in the Republican party but there is “no purge mentality in the Democratic party”.
In keeping with the Democratic slant of the commentators, the two outside interviewees featured during this hour were both Republicans, who seemed positioned to provide subtle counterpoint to the more left-leaning pundits. The questions posed to RNC chairman Michael Steele (by an unidentified MSNBC correspondent) and Tennessee congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (by Matthews) were fairly hard hitting, as could be expected. Steele was asked whether he sees “the tide going in the GOP’s favor tonight as a vote for the GOP or against the Obama administration”, a question which he handled smoothly, if somewhat evasively. Matthews even prefaced his initial question to Blackburn by labeling it a “hardball question”, asking her whether extending tax cuts or repealing the health care bill was a higher priority among Republicans. The exchange between Matthews and Blackburn was the tensest of the hour long segment I viewed, as some heated arguing ensued following Matthews’ assertion that, by wanting to “cut federal spending” “across the board”, Blackburn was advocating cutting medicare, social security, and defense expenses. Having this sort of outside opinion introduced to the panel was interesting and had I been the producer of the segment I would have aimed to include a wider range of political views and statements from more of the players involved in the midterm elections across the political spectrum.
Daniel DiMaggio
November 3, 2010 at 1:09 am
Brett Siegel
Fox News Channel
8-9pm
Fox News Channel set up a round-table-like panel of experts, analysts, and ex-politicians to discuss and examine the results of the election. Most of the discussion was focused on the strategies of candidates and why they worked or why they failed. They would comment slightly on most of the election results, but obviously concentrated on the more prominent races. Furthermore, much of the election coverage was centered on the impact of the Tea Party movement and how it affected the outcomes. A major Republican victory was illuminated as being a monumental swing of power as well as an immense reflection on President Obama’s performance. They had one specific segment in which an analyst explained why incumbent Tom Perriello lost his seat to Republican candidate Robert Hurt. Since Perriello had voted with Obama down the line, Obama had deemed it necessary to visit and support Tom’s candidacy. This was one of the only candidates that Obama publicly backed. Fox News cited this as the reason for Perriello’s defeat and used it to exaggerate Obama’s effect on other Democratic candidates. This segment was a preview of the tone that Fox News would take throughout the rest of the night’s election coverage. Although they claim to have a “fair and balanced” perspective on the news, if you watched this one hour of election coverage, you would be able to tell that everything they reported was from a conservative point of view.
One way that this partisan view could be witnessed was through the guests and speakers that they had on during the coverage. Bill O’Reilly, Karl Rove, and Sarah Palin were three of the main people that they asked to engage in discussion and give their opinions on what was happening. Bill O’Reilly provided an extreme view and perhaps more entertaining aspect to the coverage by ripping into numerous Democratic candidates without any mercy. Sarah Palin discussed the pertinence of the Tea Party movement and their will and courage to take back the government. They had journalists covering some of the areas where Republicans were winning seats over big name Democrat incumbents, but almost none in areas where Democrats were making strong stands. They covered Republican victory speeches but none of the Democrats. While making a big deal about the resurgence of the Republican party in states and districts that were won by conservatives, they almost brushed off the fact that the Democrats held on to some races that were supposed to be up in the air and what were extremely hopeful wins for Republicans.
Although there was a clear Republican message to the new reports, there was almost no voice for the Democrats. They focused on big Tea Party victories such as Rand Paul and covered his speech, but dismissed the loss of Christine O’Donnell as happening simply because Delaware is simply too deep of a blue state. Sarah Palin vehemently defended O’Donnell and fought off the question about her being the reason Republicans lost in that state. There was also discussion on how Republicans could not compromise if they gained power over both houses if they actually wanted to get anything done that was promised in the campaign. Furthermore, in the victory speeches given by Republican winners consisted mainly of the idea that they were going to take back the government and reduce spending and regulation. The only message that seemed to come from the Democratic party was that most of the candidates were attempting to space themselves from the President and were trying to get the message across that they did not agree with many of the policies that were put into place by his administration.
Finally, the journalists asked very general and factual questions about what was going on, especially when addressing actual political actors. Most of the discussion was general and seemed to be pointed towards their view on things, rather than looking for their analysts true beliefs on the election. There was one question given to Sarah Palin that was confronting. They asked her whether or not she thought that it was true that Christine O’Donnel’s nomination lost the Republicans their seat as a Delaware representative. Besides that however, almost all of the questions were directed towards why Democrats were losing so much and why the Republicans were so successful. There weren’t a lot of questions as to what the Republicans would actually do once in power, just focus on how impressive it was that they won. Most of the true content was negative in the name of Democrats’ ideals rather than what Republicans would actually do once in power.
Brett Siegel
November 3, 2010 at 1:34 am
Jake Noonan
CNN
Election Night in America
I watched Election Night in America on CNN from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m. The commentators were speaking about the gains by the different parties and who they predicted would come out on top. Anderson Cooper talked with political analysts for a good portion of the time. During this time, Wolf Blitzer was telling who was winning different states.
As Wolf Blitzer announced winners, Anderson Cooper and his analysts and political experts talked about their feelings towards the wins by the certain parties and gave reason why they felt the way they did. The republican message was that they were very confident in their belief that they were going to win the Senate, also wanting the house, as the Democrats were not too sure about the Senate but thought they had the House.
I think the program was not bad. The questions were normal, not too hard, and what you would expect. If I were a producer I would have had the political analysts give more reasons for the way they felt, i thought right when it was getting good they would switch topics, but otherwise I enjoyed it.
Jake Noonan
November 3, 2010 at 9:38 am
I watched election coverage for several hours last night with my cousin who is a big fan of Fox News. Since I don’t typically watch that station at all, we switched back and forth throughout the night and it was most interesting to see the difference between the major stations.
On Fox News, they seem to state opinions as facts which I believe confuses viewers if they don’t have additional information elsewhere. While discussing projected winners in some states, they clearly had a conservative slant. At one point a commentator made a snide remark over a democratic campaign they thought was too harsh against Linda McMahon. They also interviewed Sarah Palin who used a train metaphor to discuss the Republicans’ newfound power in the House but didn’t say what they were planning to do or why it was a good thing. Karl Rove made an appearance as well to analyze some of the results and it was difficult to listen to.
On CNN during the same hour span, they seemed to have more comprehensive election coverage going as far as leaving the projected results at the bottom of the screen during commercial breaks. Although there were certainly political slants on this station as well, I felt that they at least tried to cover all angles with a full panel of probably more than ten people. Solidad O’Brien and Elliot Spitzer particularly stood out discussing separately the Latino vote and what Obama needs to do to work with a Republican House.
The question of Obama’s next move was the biggest discussion topic by far throughout the entire night. It seemed that the more the numbers came back, the more his name came up. There were several questions though regarding the Republican’s power to get things done as well. Just as Obama ran on a campaign of hope, Republicans have put themselves in a position where voters chose them because they were promising a new change. If they can’t deliver once again, it will be a big problem for the party in general.
On both stations there was a big focus on the Tea Party as Christine O’Donnell’s concession speech and Rand Paul’s victory speech were shown live with CNN interviewing Paul just moments later. While it’s understandable that this new party movement would get attention, it’s also rather peculiar. I’m not sure why these people have garnered so much focus other than their controversial statements from weeks past.
Overall, I would have prefered more unbiased, fact-based coverage but changing around the channels and getting a few sides of the story made it much easier to swallow.
(Also, I’m very sorry I’m writing this the following morning, I didn’t realize it had to be written directly after.)
Angelica Diamond
November 3, 2010 at 10:51 am
Patrick Sweeney
FOXNews
I watched FOXNews from 7pm to 8:30pm and sporadically throughout the night. The thing I found the most interesting was when they were talking about the campaign between Reid and Angle in Nevada. Although Harry Reid ended up defeating Sharron Angle, this race ended up being very close and if Harry Reid were to lose he would have been the 1st senate majority leader to lose his own election in 50 years.
FOXNews had Megan Kelly, Brett Baier, and Sheppard Smith covering the election during the times that I watched. When I tuned in this morning, FOXNews had the lawyers involved in the Bush vs. Gore election from 2000 discussing what races might end up having a recount and the process behind having automatic recounts which is if the race ends up being decided by less than 30,000 votes.
During this time they showed brief clips from Marco Rubio’s victory speech. Rubio made it clear that it is a necessity to stand up against Obama’s agendas that are leading the country in the wrong direction. He stated that the country needs a “clear and genuine alternative.” What makes Rubio such an interesting person is that, like Obama, he is young, well spoken, and very charismatic. He is also a Cuban-Americna. That will make him an interesting right side politician for years to come whether he is a member of the tea party or not.
I also watched a speech by Delaware Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell. Even though she lost her race, she said that this election was a victory for the state of Delaware because her supporters have changed the state forever. I thought this race was particularly interesting because O’Donnell defeated Mike Castle in the GOP Primary. Castle was expected to easily defeat Democratic candidate, Coons.
The message from the republicans that I heard the most was how important it is to reform healthcare. This seemed like the Republicans number one goal. Another topic that republicans seemed to focus on was tax cuts. Because the Democrats did not lose the Senate, this election was, in a way, a victory for the Democrats. There was a lot of speculation that the Republicans were going to have the majority in both the Senate and House after the elections.
Throughout the night, there was little questioning of the candidates which is something that I would have changed if I was the producer. The whole night was basically the hosts looking at the results as they came in and them trying to predict who was going to win each seat. Occasionally they tuned into speeches given by candidates at their respective headquarters which I thought was a good idea because it gave you a little insight about what their plans were now that they have been elected or now that they have lost the election.
I felt that FOXNews did a good job covering the election results throughout the night. However if I was the producer I would have changed some things. I thought the coverage would have been a little bit better if they interviewed some of the candidates. I think if we would have heard from more candidates it would have given us better insight on each of the races and what each of their plans were now that the elections were coming to a close.
Pat Sweeney
November 3, 2010 at 10:58 am
Kiera Abdur-Rahman
Democracy Now!
Election Night Special
8-9
I watched a live stream of Election Night Programming on democracynow.org. There was a slew of people from various backgrounds discussing the election. The discussion was clearly based on the imminent victory of the Republican Party throughout the nation and the smaller percent of voters compared to the 2008 Presidential Election. Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, Kai Wright, Steve Cobble, Rebecca Traister, and Laura Flanders discussed the demise of youth votes and African American votes. They discussed the impact that African American and youth votes had on the Presidential Election and why they have substantially dropped. Kai Wright pointed out that in the eyes of black youths things have not changed which gives people a disdain for taking part in voting. The vibe during the discussion was almost a sense of doom. Laura Flanders even said well we have one optimistic news to report on Kentucky has elected an openly gay mayor. But this couldn’t overshadow the onslaught by the GOP that was on the horizon. Rebecca Traister, an author, pointed out that the Republicans put up a front of a pro women stance, but instead created a spectacle. In terms of Christine O’Donnell the media made her to be the face of women politics which was a disservice to many other women politicians in both partied who were serious candidates. Others felt that Democrats took too much of a lax stance by hoping that the Republican Party would self-destruct due to the rift between the Tea Party and the other Republicans.
Amy Goodman segued into Free Speech TV host, Gloria Neal, she interviewed Kevin Ingham, pollster, Vanessa Martinez, and Chris Rabb. Kevin Ingham discussed the fact that it will be a bad night for the Democrats, but how bad was the question. He stated that in the polls The House of Representatives would flip to Republican control and the Senate will stay with the Democrats but by a small margin. Chris Rabb, an author from Philadelphia described the Election Night as a blood bath. He pointed out that known Democratic states were voting Republican and that the voting polls looked like a ghost town. Chris Rabb reiterated that this is a backlash that is following Obama, which he states that people voted for the man not the movement. That Obama created an invisible movement based on him alone. And that people/voters don’t understand the power dynamics that happen once one enters the office. Voters felt as if their job stopped once they got Obama in the office, but that is only the beginning. Also that this has been one of the most expensive elections ever with the negative campaign ads, which Chris Rabb thought actually turned off people from voting. The Midterm Election unlike the Presidential Election was inspired by hate, not hope. Latoya Peterson of Busboys and Poets was introduced after by Amy Goodman holding her discussion in Washington, D.C. Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report described the GOP obvious victory as white backlash. Their discussion focused mainly on the racial divides within the country because of the economic disparity. Glen Ford pointed out that Obama’s election had a sense of false change and the scapegoating of nonwhites due to the economic crisis is a common theme in a racist society. So that’s why there has been a huge issue with Mexican alien immigrants and the Tea Party nostalgic feel for the good old days when Blacks were slaves. The questions that were asked by the journalists were tough and the answers were even tougher. None of the guests shied away from telling what was exactly on their mind. I wouldn’t change a thing I believe they covered all bases: racist undertones, voting demographics, and Obama. It would have been nice if they had some candidates there, but I felt the information I got from the guests was good enough.
Kiera Abdur-Rahman
November 3, 2010 at 11:16 am
During the hour I watched on MSNBC, the discussion between journalists and politicians consisted of what the president will do if Republicans control the House and the Senate. The discussion also consisted of what Congress will be concentrating on this term. When each party official was interviewed, they discussed what the projected winner will do for each state they represent. There was a consistent message from Republicans which was they are focusing on extending Bush tax cuts, cutting government spending, and getting jobs for people. I didn’t feel the Democratic message was as unified and organized as the Republican message. A lot of the conversation between the journalists consisted of what the Tea Party wants for the public.
I think the questions from the journalists to the candidates were strong, direct questions that interrogated the candidate about what they would do if they were elected to Congress. This allowed the public to understand the key points of race through the candidates explanation of what ideologies they were campaigning on. The questions geared toward party officials were also strong. However, they were less about the individual and more about the party the represented. A lot of the question had to do with the American public wanted and how each party would deliver. There were also hypothetical questions form the journalists regarding the Republican control of Congress and how President Obama would work around it. There was some tension between the Republican candidates and the journalists. Overall, the majority of answers revolved around the economy and what candidates and party officials are going to do to revive it.
If I were the producer of the hour I watched, I would not want the journalists on my show to harass the candidates. Chris Matthews interrogated Michele Bachmann disrespectfully and the point of harassment. This made me wonder if he would have done the same thing if it were a male Republican candidate in her position. If I were the producer, I would not want the journalists to blatantly show their political affiliation and to treat candidates with deference. I would also want the discussion between them to consist of criticism of the parties and not mockery. However, the current trend of news seems to advocate this behavior in order to create more polarization.
Anna Zailik
November 3, 2010 at 11:52 am
For the above comment:
Anna Zailik
MSNBC
Anna Zailik
November 3, 2010 at 11:54 am
CNN News Room
Tuning into CNN after 11pm, Wolf Blitzer was standing in front of a computerized map of the United States that was shinning mostly red. Some of the results, as well as projections for states who’s results had yet to be called were showing the possible future of a Republican majority in the House. Soon the camera would turn to Anderson Cooper, standing in front of a round table surrounded by political analysts, strategists, former advisers to politicians, journalists, and other political correspondents. During the round table segment they discussed Sarah Palin’s influence on the results of the candidates she had personally backed. Republican Nikki Haley had just been announced the new Governor of South Carolina, making her the first Indian-American woman Governor of the state, and in fact of any state in the United States History. The proclaimed GOP supporters at the round table discussed the possible notion that Palin had helped hoist Haley to her victory; while the opposition at the table threw out those claims by saying the Nikki Haley won because she was Nikki Haley, she never needed any help from Sarah Palin to win the election. During the course of the hour there was debate on whether the soon to be confirmed GOP majority in the House and the Democratic hold on the Senate, would be a repeat of the 1994 midterm election. The 1994 elections, which gave Republicans control of the Congress, eventually went favorably for the Democrats and the Democratic president of the time, Bill Clinton.
When the camera was not focuses on the group of political enthusiasts, it would cut away to either live interviews of current politicians in office or to speeches being broadcast of the winners as well as the losers of the races that were coming to an end. The Republicans were voicing words mirroring their undeniable triumphs in the election. In the speech I watched given by Minority Leader John Boehner, he spoke of the inevitable “change” that would soon sweep that country, while he also go noticeably choked up when touching upon the need for small government and a more stable economy. Yet the Democrats were not taking all the hits that evening, it was a win in the New York Governor race for Democrat Andrew Cuomo, who amped up his supporters by shouting:“The politics are over!” and “It’s New Yorkers first!” Wolf Blitzer then interviewed Republican Representative Eric Cantor, who expressed the same feelings of triumph and achievement. Blitzer wasn’t asking Rep. Cantor any hard-hitting questions, but more asking him about his reactions, feelings and predictions about the races that had not been closed upon yet. There was not any tension to be spoken of between Blitzer and Cantor, making the interview clearly dominated by Cantor’s blissful prediction of how the “change” the American people had been asking for was finally coming to them.
One of the changes the Producer could have made to this election night coverage could have included making the interviews less of a chance for showboating, and more of a hard hitting policy discussion between reporter and politician. Back at the round table the discussions and debate were livelier, which made for better television. Round table discussions are always a good idea when conflict and deliberation is wanted, especially during the uncertain hours in which we wait for the results of an election. On the whole, CNN went about their election night coverage well, but could have done better in asking the tougher questions to create a more inquisitive audience.
Claire Reddan
November 3, 2010 at 12:27 pm
The hour that I watched on CNN, from 7-8pm, was fairly uneventful. I don’t have cable, so I streamed live on CNN’s website. One of the cameras showed a rally for Rand Paul in Bowling Green, KY. The first speaker I saw was Congressman Brett Guthrie who spoke to a small audience about improving America and ensuring that our children have the same quality of life that we and our ancestors. At that time, Paul was expected to win the Senate seat over Jack Conway. Then Congressman Ed Whitfield spoke against the policies of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. He said we need to adopt policies to help create jobs, not create obstacles to jobs, while repealing health care and stopping cap and trade.
One camera feed showed Tea Party members in Washington D.C., and another projected Rubio to win Florida’s Senate. Both feeds had no audio.
The fourth feed showed Senator DeMint, who was re-elected in SC. He spoke about projected underdogs who ended up winning the race, like Rubio and Toomey. DeMint excited the audience by saying that we’re are ready to take back and redefine America. He said we need to return to Judeo-Christian values, which I thought was interesting. Maybe he was hinting at Islam. He, and most Republicans, mentioned America’s forefathers and spoke of a new era where people have power and are able to employ freedom “like the rest of the world doesn’t understand.” It sounds like everyone, at least the Republicans, are afraid that America is slipping from it’s #1 position in the world, as other countries rise to power.
Overall, the coverage was not stimulating or interesting, and this is because I watched too early, though I did see snippets of more eventful results later in the night. I don’t think anything could have been done to make the coverage more interesting that early in the night because most of the results were not in yet.
Jeff Prentky
November 3, 2010 at 1:01 pm
CNN
I watched CNN from 7:30-8:30, during the news hour they discussed the numerous races across the country. During this hour many polls were closing and winners were announced. Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer were the two main anchors covering and discussing a majority of the election. Cooper mediated a round table of political analysts and Blitzer worked the board showing the different races and which way states were leaning or positions they were taking.
In the beginning of the hour they showed exit poll data from West Virginia showing that Republicans had won there. They talked about how many big states were closing their polls soon, 15 different states and Washington DC. CNN kept flashing between Blitzer giving results and Cooper talking with a table of experts. All the experts agreed that the Republican’s would gain seats and that this change is not a direct attack against Obama, but rather a “Referendum on Obama’s Policies.” They showed Nancy Pelosi speaking in Washington DC about how the Democrats will fight in this election and win fairly. But they also acknowledged that people are frustrated with the way things have been going and the voting was showing through.
During the last part of the hour the major results were given. I watched Coons (D) winning in Delaware who beat Christine O’Donnell who I remember from her “I am not a witch” commercial, which I am familiar with thanks to other courses. The Senate wins covered in this news hour included Rubio (R) in Florida, Ayote (R) in New Hampshire, Makulski (D) in Maryland and Lumenthal (D) in Connecticut. Ethnic diversity was also a hot topic here due to the increase in candidates running this election. I found that aspect to be particularly interesting seeing as that isn’t alwasy the topic of discussion during an election.
Christie Brid
November 3, 2010 at 1:19 pm
I watched NBC hosted by Brian Williams. He was joined by David Gregory, Tom Brokaw, correspondents Andrea Mitchell, Savannah Guthrie and Lester Holt, NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Mark Whitaker and NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd. It was announced that the Republicans would take control of the house, and various technologies were used to show election results. They were described as “virtual reality technologies” and used items such as ipads and iscreens. Many of the analysts agreed that the results directly correlated with people’s feelings of dissatisfaction with the current state of the economy and America at large. The extension of Bush’s tax cuts by the Republicans were also discussed. In terms of questioning, I felt that the interviewers were a little less harsh on the democratic candidates while the Republicans faced a harsher environment. Democrats were faced with questions dealing with how they were going to adjust to the swing in the control of the house. Republicans on the other hand were pounded by questions about the economy and how they planned to revive it. While, I believe it is good that these questions were asked, I felt as if they were questions that should have been asked by both sides. After this, Brian Williams and panel gave their thoughts on how Obama would approach the new environment he was operating in. It was suggested that Obama would now have to make more compromises especially in relation to taxes and energy policies.
Sean Hughes
November 3, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Watch one hour of election night television coverage and post your comments at the end of that hour. Click the Leave a Comment link above and enter:
Your name
The name of the television station you watched
Your observations and critiques of the individuals from media and government who were on the air during the hour your watched. Use these questions as a guideline:
What was discussed during the hour?
Who discussed it? Journalists? Analysts? Candidates? Campaign and party officials?
Did you hear a consistent message from Democrats? Republicans? If so, what was it?
Rate the questions asked by the journalists? Were they tough? Were they softballs? Did they help you understand the key points in the race? Was there tension between the journalists and the individuals they interviewed?
If you were the producer of the hour you watched, what changes would you make in the coverage?
Gia Peppers
CNN
I watched CNN for an hour, starting at 7:15. For most of the time I watched, Anderson Cooper spoke with various political analysts such as, Elliot Spitzer, Soledad O’Brien, and Paul Begela as polls were starting to close on the East coast. Wolf Blitzer and John King talked about possible outcomes of the election by using the magic board, but there were still no clear results at this time. Most of the discussion was centered around what will happen next, and it looked like the Democrats were going to lose the House.
Because President Obama’s approval rating has recently decreased due to the economy, Republicans realized that this would be a good time to get the trust of the American people back. The Democrats that spoke during the hour I watched were emphasizing the progress that happened in the past two years, they do not want the American people to lose trust in them. The Republicans are now campaigning on the same message that Obama ran with, promoting change. They believe that they can clean up Congress and boost the economy. Much of the broadcast consisted of possible situations, including a split Congress.
If I produced the show, I would have done most of the things the same way. But every other break, I would report regular news because most of the segment was not very informative after watching it for ten minutes, every person kept reiterating the same points. After the results were clear, then I would have changed the programming to full time election coverage.
Gia Peppers
November 3, 2010 at 2:31 pm
When I watched the election coverage last night on CNN from around 7 30 to 8 30, King and Blitzer were talking about the possible outcomes using magic boards. Nothing was certain yet so they were only speculating as to what the results could be. They were anticipating that the Republicans were going to win the House (which ended up being correct). There were also a lot of speeches by politicians. I was watching when Coons beat Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, which I was not surprised by, because I don’t think I ever heard one person say something good about her. For the most part, they were just waiting around, so the coverage was kind of boring and uneventful. However, even if I were producing the show, I can’t think of anything I would have done differently. There wasn’t much they could have done to make it less boring while they were waiting around for results.
Jamie Jarrett
November 3, 2010 at 3:47 pm
I watched CNN for the election coverage which mainly focused on the rivalry between the Democratic and Republican parties. Anderson Cooper was an anchor for the program as well as Wolf Blitzer covering with John King. Aspects of tea party poliical candidates wins and losses were also mentioned throughout the program. Political analysts basically all agreed that there would more than likely be a shift towards the Republican party for this election.
In general this was explained to not be an attack against Obama personally, but rather most citizens would like a fresh outlook on policies. Being that many average Americans were talking on the broadcast about not being completely satisfied with Obama’s current changes, or lack-thereof, it makes sense many would look to another political party for other options. However, due to Obama’s approval rating recently declining, the Democrats are naturally becoming increasingly worried about losing the trust of those who brought them into office in the first place.
The main questions being asked did not seem to be too heavy-handed. They were mostly asking straightforward inquiries such as “what does this mean for [insert state or political party]?” and each panel member would usually explain in their own words while usually having the same gist to each statement. There seemed to be a solid amount of agreement to each guest’s statements.
Although there were many fun aspects to the broadcast, there were some aspects that seemed a bit unnecessary to me. For example, there was a type of technology that counted “tweets” about the election. While cool, it seemed to take away a bit of the serious tone to the matter at hand. In general, I thought it was a good, and fairly unbiased view on the elections.
Stephanie Kosofsky
November 3, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Lauren Choinski
FOX News online streaming live
I don’t have a TV here at school, believe it or not. So I tuned into the most notoriously biased new station via their website: FOX. I really wanted to get a taste of how they would shape the viewers’ idea of the election. The panel of “The Strategy Room” is made up of four people: 2 men and 2 women. One woman was Hispanic and the other black; one white man and one Middle Eastern man. The Hispanic woman even spoke with a moderate accent. I thought it was interesting that they made this demographic equality so obvious. Occasionally, they break away to a reporter on site at a voting location. In West Virginia, a blond journalist reports that Republican John Raese, who is running for senate, is using underdog tactics with WV voters.
The panel also spoke about how the US should make voting easier and consistent throughout the country. They said its “a disgrace beyond belief” that the US doesn’t push for their soldiers to vote overseas. “What is worse? Robbing a bank or robbing democracy?” says the white man as he explains how close elections create dangerous results. He seems to be the only angry person on the panel. Everyone else is giggling and not really talking about anything important. They seem to be just taking up time recapping what happened in Florida in 2000 when they needed a recount because of how close it was.
I temporarily jumped to another website because i actually got bored of hearing FOX news reporters ramble about nothing. Bloomberg reports that what usually happens in an election like this one is the underdog prevails. I thought that was interesting.
I don’t think FOX had interesting questions to discuss. If I was producer I would give more facts about current issues in states and what’s at risk. I felt like I was largely uninformed after watching FOX. I felt like they could have included more important current issues that would inform the viewer if they have not been closely watching the campaigns.
Lauren Choinski
November 3, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Brian Letts
CNN
I wanted CNN last night between 7 and 8 pm. It was mostly Analysts that were discussing results that were coming in but it was led by a journalist. There were also some former politicians such as Elliot Spitzer giving insights and commentary. They were discussing who the projected winners of races would be as well as the ramifications that gaining or loosing seats could have on both parties. I really didn’t hear too many comments coming in from democrats or republicans, but the panelists were certainly holding a consistent message. One message that I kept hearing and made a lot of sense to me was that a few years ago the republican party was dead and now they were going to take the house back and that it was a clear sign that people were angry with Obama and Pelosi democrats.
I noticed that the questions were all kind of leading the answers, it sounded like a talk show. I did not see many actual interviews though. Most of the coverage was just the talking heads discussing the reports from the field coming in and then expressing their opinions. Questions were asked like, “What would Ohio going republican say about the nation’s opinion of President Obama?” Very soft and very leading questions.
As a producer of this show, I wouldn’t change much of anything. It was exactly what I expected from the pre-results show. Very opinion based, very easy open ended questions and a lot of fillers. I would definitely use more of those 3D graphs, charts and touch screen technology though, not because its more effective, just because it is really cool. But that is pretty much it.
Brian Letts
November 3, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Dana Cimera
Fox Business
Anchor Neil Cavuto spoke with Sarah Palin, former Republican governor of Alaska. They discussed the next day’s press conference that Obama would be holding. Palin believes that what he addresses will shape what the next two years are going to be about. She does not believe that Obama is “humble” enough to admit his mistaken fundamental transformation to America. She said that there was a “political earthquake” with the minimum of a 60 seat shift and that there was a need for a smaller smarter government. In quoting Thomas Pane, she discusses the everybody must sacrifice. The US should stop taking actions that result in incurring more debt, otherwise there will no longer be a prosperous America. She believes that this upcoming year the Republicans have must responsibility and if they blow it they may be facing third party challenge, like the Whigs. The libertarian leaning tea party has GOP establishment on notice. Palin says Republican leaders in Washington DC realize that they cannot compromise in their principles. Republicans must dig into promises made by candidates in order to “repel Obama care.”
Cavuto asked Palin questions that were on the tougher side and she was trying to avoid some of his questions. There was no tension because Fox, being a predominantly Republican news station was interviewing a Republican. Cavuto was digging to find out if Palin had intentions on running for president. She only came out and said that she would be interested. Palin pushed a consistent message of Republican, which was expected. Cavuto pushed to her discuss her endorsements and how 70 percent of them so far were successful, even though Palin believes she may have hurt some. He says that those candidates she endorsed will be the ones who help her to the presidency. Neil says that in talking with someone earlier they had discussed that it was the ideal time for a third party presidential candidate such as Bloomberg.
Cavuto brings up to Palin his prior discussion with Joe Miller, when he was dodging the topic, about liberal voter Senator Murkowski’s misspelled ballots. Cavuto does not give his own opinion but questions Palin. She believes that they should not be recognized, as in 1992 when she ran for city council the ruling against her opponent was so.
Pete Barnes, another anchor, went over a few exit polls. He discussed the economic stimulus plan, and that 33% believe it hurt the economy, 33% believe it helped the economy, and 31% believe it had no effect on the economy. He said those who believed it hurt were the Republicans mostly. I was unsure of what he mean when he said “6/10 who were neutral broke for GOP,” he did not explain himself to viewers who were not fully aware of everything going on. He displayed a poll portraying that 87% of Americans are worried about the economy, and the other 13% are not. He continued to discuss blames for the economic conditions: 35% blame Wall Street bankers, 29% blame George W. Bush, and 23% blame President Obama. 62% of the country believes that the nation is headed in the wrong direction, while 35% disagree.
If I were the producer I would have had more of a variety of commentary, especially between the parties, including the Tea Party and Independents. This would allow for viewers to hear multiple view points, rather than the typical Democratic and Republican one. Fox, since Palin was being interviewed at this time, really only allowed for the Republican angle.
Dana Cimera
November 3, 2010 at 8:13 pm
I watched CNN from 7-8 last night and occasionally throughout the night. Anderson Cooper and Wold Blitzer were anchors for the program as well as covering with John King. They were discussing projected winners and how them winning the election would benefit the nation and who wouldn’t. The panelists held a consist message throughout the night regarding our nations future. They believed that the republicans had a sort of rebirth during this election period and eventually will take the White House back during our nations next presidential election.
It seemed as if i was watching some sort of talk show. The question were very basic and leading. Most of the coverage was just discussing the reports from the information coming in and then expressing their thoughts.
As a producer I wouldnt change much. It was what I pretty much expected from a viewers eye. Basic questions easy for everyone to understand and follow the election. Overall,I believe the anchors relayed the information pretty well!
Evan Pimentel
November 3, 2010 at 9:29 pm
I watched from 9 to 10 CNN and there election coverage. I have never really watched any of these election coverages before, even the historic 2008 presidental election, but I really learned a lot of insight from this. I learned a lot about the tea party and how the young gun republicans are making an impact such as Rand Paul and Marco something from Florida. Andersoon Cooper was the main host who brought you through the opinions of many democrats and republicans in studio, as well as show many speeches from winners and loosers of the night.
The overall theme seemed to be about how the house now with control, will try and cut spending and will be fighting with obama about the health care and other spending sprees the government has had the past 2 years. The men and women on the show kept bringing up how Obama will not have as easy of a time controlling congress and getting them to vote how he wants them to.
Michael Turitto
November 4, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Devlina Roy
NBC
Brian Williams covered the “Decision 2010” on NBC at 9pm. He asked questions from TV journalism Tom Brokaw, D.C., news journalist Lest Holt, Tim Kain from the Democratic National Committee and Mark Whitaker, Bureau Chief. Their house project was 198 for Democrats and 237 for Republicans. John Boehner, Republican representative from Ohio is projected to replace speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi. This is very important in terms of the Obama administration and a large step for the Republicans since they will most probably focus largely on government spending.
Tom Brokaw refered to the American electorates as “wild bull” and explained that independent voting is driving several of the elections. He also explain that 43% of the country no longer beleives in the American dream, and that the Obama admistration is to be blamed for all the miscommunication within the country. It will definitely be a site to see how Obama handles all this during his news conference. Brokaw continues to explain how losing the House to te opposite party gives Obama a “clear, definable enemy.” Whitaker explains that Boehner is pressured to roll back spending and repeal the healthcare plan. He is also the type to go to work quietly, not like Pelosi, but his attack plan will depend on Obama’s tone as well as the results of the Senate.
Hold covered the rising Tea Party activists. It was said that 87% of Tea Party activists voted Republican in their local house races. This is because they wanted to reduce the budget deficit and cut the budget taxes for the next congress. The Tea Party also talks of a “constitutional, where people want less from their federal government and more control themselves within the next two years. Kaine explained that with Democrats in the white house and the majority of Republicans, it is clear that America is closely divided. He explains how there needs to be a movement of collaboration with both sides working together in order to move forward. He also states that it will be interesting to see if Republicans in on deficit control.
There were several topics covered from both parties. The discussion along with the interview question/answers were extremely in depth and very intruiging and information. Although, I feel that if the Republican National Committee was there to discuss their plan of action rather then just the Democratic National Committee alone, it would have been an even more intense discussion.
Devlina Roy
November 4, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Natika Prospere
CNN:
My hour coverage of the 2010 Midterm Elections was spent watching CNN. Although there was not one specific topic being discussed (rather just a general overview) there was a significant amount of discussion on whether the Republicans would ultimately take over the government. The news correspondents and analysts used live interviews with voters in order to get a general sense of how Americans were voting. Most of the interviews consistently showed people who were dissatisfied with Obama’s policies and ‘big’ government in general. Government spending and unemployment were two key issues expressed by the dissatisfied voters. Many of which, sided with the Republicans in order to get less government regulation. In addition, CNN included interviews with several political analysts who discussed the “shift in power”. The Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steel, voiced his opinion by saying that he, “hopes President Obama will hear the voice of the American people.” In other words, Steel looks forward to winning both the Senate and the House. The Republican and Democratic messages were consistent and sounded the same at times. Both parties want to better serve Americans, increase revenue and employment. However, the Republicans did bring up all of the mistakes of the Democratic Party for the past two years. Coverage and discussion of the Tea Parties influence was questioned with many finding the Tea Partiers to be too extreme for most moderate Americans.
In general, most Americans were just dissatisfied with the government. Obama’s downward spiraling approval rating was definitely an indicator of this. Overall, I was satisfied with the coverage, although it did get repetitive. The voice of the American people was on display, yet I had not heard one person say they thought the government was doing a good job. The footage seemed a bit one sided with many people supporting the Republicans. I believe this was because they just assumed that the Republicans were going to win- that was certainly the message I got from viewing.
Tika Prospere
November 5, 2010 at 12:58 am
Blaine Schoen
CNN
On election day, I watched news coverage on CNN in the evening around 8pm. At this time, the polls were closing, all the votes were being accounted for, and important issues were raised regarding what the new results would bring.
CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer hosted the coverage and along with a panel group addressed several issues of concern for the midterm elections. The panel featured people from both political parties including journalists, former politicians and political analysts, all of whom contributed to the discussion.
The projected winners were discussed and the actual winners were announced on the show as they came in.
On CNN, the coverage had predicted that the Republican party would win control of the elections. This prediction was made because many are said to have been unsatisfied with President Obama’s policies and are looking for a change.
For the most part, the panelists also collectively agreed that this election was a turning point for the Republican party. They said that the Republicans were starting to gain more control and could possibly be in the White House in the next presidential election.
The questions asked were straight-forward and there were no questions that were unnecessary or too much for the program.
I thought the program was put together well. Because it featured a panel, it offered perspectives from all different types of people which is beneficial for a show like this because people from different political parties, backgrounds and such, can relate to what was said.
Blaine Schoen
November 7, 2010 at 3:10 pm
CNN- Hosted by Cooper, Blitzer, and a group of panelists from both sides of the aisle.
The main thing discussed in the hour was what the potential impact of the gains made by the Republican party on the Obama administration. They spent a good deal talking about how this election could be seen as a referendum of Obama’s policy, in particular the health care and bailouts. They spoke of how unsatisfied Americans are with the current economy and this might be a potential turning point in the current administration, and politics in general. This is because it could represent the nation’s unsatisfaction with the current party system, and that if the Republican’s do not do what they promise, the tea-partyers will split from them as well.
The consistent message from the Democrats was that this is not a sign of American’s against Obama, but a showing of their dissatisfaction with the current economic problems, coupled with good Republican propaganda.
The Republican message was the opposite. They spoke of how Americans were sick of Obama’s policies, unhappy with the healthcare policy, unhappy with the bailout, and that they showed their unhapiness in the polls. They spoke how they will not give away their second chance and do their best for the American people.
The questions were pretty basic, they were pretty much the same questions you heard before the election for months. What does this mean for the tea party? What does this mean for Obama? Does this represent a shit in our nations political ideology? Granted these are questions are valid, however I would like to see how this election would effect future policies, but not in a broad sense. I wanted to hear how specific policies might be affected
If I was the producer, I would try to add more bi-partisan candidates who were not simply trying to use the show as a platform to convey their message. Some of the panelists were obviously trying to do this, and when this happens even when they say something that might be true you may ignore it because their credibility is in question.
Thomas Mendez
November 7, 2010 at 4:45 pm
On November 3, 2010 I watched CNN from about 7:00pm to around 8:45pm. They had a full panel of people who each got to speak about different topics and issues as well as give opinions about what political leaders such as Obama would have to do in order to keep his followers. One of the biggest and longest dicussed topics of the night was concerning President Obama and how he should go about working with the Republican party. Solidad O’Brien and Elliot Spitzer were two of the panelists who spoke on this topic. The panelists also focused on what Obama’s next move should be in general. His name came up multiple times throughout the night. The panelists made a point of explaining that Republicans could win votes just based on hope and trust because they are taking the same approach that Obama used when he promised change.
Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper were the main anchors discussing most of the election. John King also participated in some of the discussion. Wolf Blitzer was focused on giving the results and Cooper was leading the round table and engaging in conversation with the political analysts. The panelists appeared to agree on the fact that the Republicans would definitely gain seats due to the fact that people are unhappy with Obama’s policies and the way he’s carried out his plans. It appeared that they were all really just waiting for the final results and at times the same points were just being reiterated over and over. The questions that were asked were fairly simple and basic; there was nothing too surprising here. If I was the producer I would have tried to have them ask more difficult and even intriguing questions to avoid the same answers multiple times, other than that I would have kept everything the same.
Christina Lloyd
November 9, 2010 at 12:36 am
On November 2, 2010 I watched CNN from about 7:00pm to around 8:45pm. They had a full panel of people who each got to speak about different topics and issues as well as give opinions about what political leaders such as Obama would have to do in order to keep his followers. One of the biggest and longest dicussed topics of the night was concerning President Obama and how he should go about working with the Republican party. Solidad O’Brien and Elliot Spitzer were two of the panelists who spoke on this topic. The panelists also focused on what Obama’s next move should be in general. His name came up multiple times throughout the night. The panelists made a point of explaining that Republicans could win votes just based on hope and trust because they are taking the same approach that Obama used when he promised change.
Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper were the main anchors discussing most of the election. John King also participated in some of the discussion. Wolf Blitzer was focused on giving the results and Cooper was leading the round table and engaging in conversation with the political analysts. The panelists appeared to agree on the fact that the Republicans would definitely gain seats due to the fact that people are unhappy with Obama’s policies and the way he’s carried out his plans. It appeared that they were all really just waiting for the final results and at times the same points were just being reiterated over and over. The questions that were asked were fairly simple and basic; there was nothing too surprising here. If I was the producer I would have tried to have them ask more difficult and even intriguing questions to avoid the same answers multiple times, other than that I would have kept everything the same.
Christina Lloyd
November 9, 2010 at 12:38 am
Kevin Tam
CNN
The general discussion was that the Democrats and Republicans should combine as their synergistic effect would be much more successful. A shift in power was also discussed by the correspondents in the event that Republicans took over. With a shift in power, the analysts discussed how Obama was going to work with a Republic majority. The Republicans wanted a majority and were confident they would secure it, because they felt dissatisfied and frustrated with the lack of progress thus far from the Democrats which goes hand-in-hand with voters’ opinions. The influx in Republican voters was a response to not getting what they were promised. The Democrats hoped to preserve a majority and stated that it is important to realize that change took time but was coming. Most of the correspondents seemed to agree that the Republicans would win back the majority in both houses.
CNN then changed pace and started to shift their focus on side stories. They focused on Bill Clinton’s assistance in campaigning for Ted Strickland in the governor’s race in Ohio. CNN also featured questions from viewers sent in by e-mail. A majority of the questions that came up were in regards to the changes that would be made if Republicans took over the House and the Senate. At one point, there was even a little coverage on Proposition 19, the bill that would, if passed, legalize marijuana for recreational use in California.
The coverage from CNN was substantial and fair. Overall, CNN did a decent job in not being too partial towards any one party. However, it seemed a little too unorganized with its shifts in focus from the election to the smaller issues at hand. It would have probably been more beneficial to shine the spotlight more on the election and perhaps have more interviews with politicians and campaigners than to just continuously spew out predictions.
Kevin Tam
November 9, 2010 at 11:31 am
For the hour I watched CNN News around 7pm. Anderson Cooper was speaking with different analysts. These analysts included Paul Begela, Elliot Spitzer, and Soledad O’Brien who spoke as polls were starting to close on the East Coast. Then Wolf Blitzer and John King came on the television and talked the forecasted outcomes of the election by using the magic board, but there were still no clear results at this time.
The reoccuring message of the Democrats was not American against Obama or angry with him, but simply a display of their frustration with the current economic problems, along with good Republican propaganda.
On the other hand, the Republican message was of how Americans were fed up with Obama’s policies such as the healthcare policy, the bailout, and in the polls. They were promising the American people that they will not fail them if given this second chance.
Because President Obama’s approval rating has recently decreased because of the economic status, Republicans realized that this would be a good time to get the trust of the American people back. The Democrats were emphasizing the progress that has happened in the past two years, they are worried about the American people losing their trust in them. The Republicans are promoting a new change. They are ready to clean up Congress and boost the economy.
As a producer I wouldnt change much of anything. It was what I expected from a viewers eye. Their were basic questions that were easy for viewers to understand and follow the election. Overall, the anchors relayed the information very well.
Juleen Burke
November 9, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Kelvin Canda
CNN
During the time that I watched, it was about the last hour before the polls closed. Wolf Blitzer was hosting the show, emphasizing how unhappy Americans today were with politics, and raised concerns and statistics backing it up. It already seemed that the Democratic party suffered a huge blow, with a political team of analysts discussing it. The affects of Tea Partiers’ presence in Congress and the future of Congress were discussed, with Americans hoping that both parties would somehow work together since there is complete dissatisfaction on both sides.
There was a constant approval rating of the president and congress, showing that no one is happy with either party. Some audience viewers called to express their views and concerns discussing the divide amongst citizens, the possibility of it being larger during Bush’s tenure in office, as well as input from Wolf Blitzer and other reporters. CNN should have covered more aspects of the election and its affects in our future rather than what was relevant at that moment. More depth news from both sides, and providing more thorough responses would have helped me udnerstand more, rather than showing sympathy toward the Democratic party. Expressing sympathy only promotes audiences to discuss how unhappy they are with either party, but does not give concrete facts or news of the pros and cons of both parties. Instead of emphasizing a dissatisfied feelings, they should have discuseed how both parties can come together and hopefully fix or provide the change we really need.
Kelvin Canda
November 9, 2010 at 5:58 pm