Monday, January 28, 2013

Joe vs. Hil in 2016


Blog Post: “Jocular Joe vs. hard-charging Hil”
Clare Palo


In this article the author discusses the hot topic of who will be the next “Barack Obama” in 2016. The media has created a tight “race” between what they think are the next top 2 candidates: Hilary Clinton, former Secretary of State and Vice President, Joe Biden. Hilary has stated numerous times in press interviews that she is not planning to run again in 2016, and she has retired from the political business. So why does the media insist she is the next controversial presidential runner? Is the media creating their own news? Are they basing their hunches on actual evidence or assumptions? Does this Huffington Post have factual evidence, and is it relevant to the current political issues? It seems the article is highlighting the “what-ifs” because there is a lack of political news, with the 2012 election being over, and Obama being inaugurated last week. The country has just elected a president into office, and the media is already discussing a new one. Does this article present a form of bias, by telling the public that Hilary Clinton is in the running for the next president of the United States? The headline also states “Joe vs. Hil,” but mentions little about Joe and why they believe he is Hilary’s competition. Is this fair journalism, or sloppy speculation?

15 comments:

  1. Clare poses a good question at the end of her summary- "Is this fair journalism, or sloppy speculation?". It is interesting to see how the political news-sphere is already looking into future campaigns, instead of the freshly inaugurated president we have now. Could it be part of the News's struggle between journalism and entertainment? The gossip like quality to the article suggests a type of sensationalizing to the reader.

    On the other hand, discussing Hilary Clinton's rise in culture could be seen as definite news. Her status and influence in society has garnered a lot of followers, and she proves to be a subject worth keeping an eye on, even if not for the near future.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The article certainly seems biased toward Clinton, especially in the line that reads “But no matter how well the few years go for the Obama-Biden partnership, this is Clinton’s to lose if she wants it.” I don’t think it is that clean cut or that The Daily News or anyone for that matter can see into the future so confidently. It does seem like they are creating their own news or perhaps, stretching the little clues that are present into a big story. The journalist in fact, calls it silly to make speculations like this so early yet they are doing just that.

    I believe there is evidence such as Biden flashing a smile and Hillary showing a fist, but I wouldn’t call it factual because it definitely appears to be blown out of proportion and taken out of context. I don’t see any relevance to what is happening in politics currently except for the miniscule mentioning about the fiscal cliff, which, when mentioned, added little to the story. I don’t believe this article fairly represents news.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Olivia. Clare brought up a legitimate question. "Is this fair journalism, or sloppy speculation?" I personally think it depends on how you look at it. In some ways I see how this could be sloppy since Hilary Clinton has stated she has no plans on running and they're going off of what-ifs. However, it's common for people to wonder who will be next to run for office, even after the election or re-election of a president. They did the same type of stories back in '04 after the Bush & Kerry election. I myself even asked who would be next, so I can definitely see how others would be curious or concerned about the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. KYLE WIGGERS: Clare asks, "Does this article present a form of bias, by telling the public that Hilary Clinton is in the running for the next president of the United States?" I'm not sure 'bias' is the right word - more like pure, unadulterated conjecture. And I don't think James Warren goes so far as to confirm beyond doubt Clinton's 2016 candidacy. (He coyly hints and slyly suggests, but doesn't outright say anything.) I do, however, believe that this and other articles written in similarly vague, unspecific ways about what public figures *might* do give them visibility, publicity. It's more 'free press' than outright partisan one-sidedness, but still an important consideration, to be sure.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Clare, I think you brought up a great point. I agree that political news is slow after an election and I think that some readers take more time than others in being ready to read about politics again after being bombarded with election coverage. But is the media really in a position to post this kind of story predicting the next president without attributing the opinions? I think it would be different if someone, like a political figure or at least someone with a background of political knowledge, said this. Maybe the writer does have this kind of background, but these days, what reader is going to take the time to write a letter to the editor or even email the writer (even if the email is conveniently located on the website) to ask why this is credible information? What I also think is interesting is that both predicted presidents of 2016 are democrats. So does this mean the publication stands for democratic views? Will they drive away their republican audience? This definitely supports what Clare said about bias. I find it extremely important to consider these things before even pitching the story. I understand that some people find things more interesting/newsworthy than others, but this is something that can really stir some people up which may or may not be bad for the writer and the publication as a whole (think about it: when a single story causes controversy, do people blame the writer or the entire paper? If I were to print something in the Post that caused an uproar, will people say that I'm a bad journalist, or that the Post isn't worth reading?).
    I also agree with Carly that the story seems to be biased toward Hillary. Maybe this is because we just had our first African American president, so does that mean the first woman president is coming soon? These are the kinds of things people want to read about...But that does not mean that a journalist can fabricate anything. I don't think this story is necessarily fabricated, it just does not attribute enough of the information to be read completely without question.

    ReplyDelete
  6. “Does this Huffington Post have factual evidence, and is it relevant to the current political issues?”

    First of all, I would start out with that the link takes me to NYDailyNews, not Huffington Post. Even though I agree that the article is highlighting what-ifs, I think the author disclaims that at the beginning of the article with this quote.

    “It’s like asking, even before pitchers and catchers report to spring training, whether Joe Girardi is chopped liver if the Yankees don’t get past the first round of the playoffs. And who’ll succeed him? Rehire Joe Torre? Exhume the body of Billy Martin?

    I do not think the article is saying they have factual evidence of whether either of the two prospects will run, but by predicting the outcome of such, it is a compare and contrast piece about these two possible candidates. I think in comparing the facts, the journalist only highlights the information that he knows. However, I am not sure that article is warranted and needed? Do we need journalists to think for us and pose their own speculations?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I also agree that the question Clare poses at the end of her summary, "Is this fair journalism, or sloppy speculation?" should be brought up. It seems as though the article had good points about the politics, but as far as being news, I am just not buying it. It is something that people could be pondering, who will run for office in the next election? The fact that Obama was just elected and the next election isn't for a few years seems as though the information is just speculation and it is in a broad sense, gossip.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Like most everyone else, I agree that the journalistic integrity of this article should be questioned. It is simply just too early to be speculating on any possible race that won't take place until four years from now. And as stated before, there is no real concrete reason to believe that these two politicians should be the frontrunners to compete for the presidential seat in 2016, especially if Hilary Clinton herself has denied that she is not interested in running. Serena, too, raises a good question, and that is should we as journalists be making speculations. While I think there may be times for journalists to speculate, I feel that for the most part it is a journalists job to just report the facts. I believe that this article is certainly not a topic to be speculated on.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't think you could have ended the article with a better question. It does seem to be sloppy journalism. If Hilary said she is not going to run again in 2016, why are we questioning it? Why is Biden her competition? Why are we talking about an election that will not legitimately begin to take shape until 2015? It seems to me like this is the Huffington Post's way of trying to keep people into political news. They want to keep the people who were more involved with politics due to the election this past Fall in the news, so they introduced a new controversy. It seems like they're just trying to draw more attention.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think the title is misleading because it is already naming two candidates for the race nearly four years down the road. The entire article is built on speculation and has very little news relevance as well. The Huffington post probably wrote this article in order to grab attention from the public and stir up a political debate. Politics always keep people engaged. It would be interesting if Hillary runs for President in 2016 because I think she would have a very good chance to win as long as she gets through the Primary Race.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I find this entire article to be very interesting. James Warren does inform the reader that this is not certified information but more so a guess fulfilling what he refers to as a "...silly but...guilty pleasure". While I wouldn't consider the suggesting of Hillary as a potential candidate in the next election as bias, I do believe there is slight bias in that Warren is awarding Hillary with an upperhand (if this election were to ever happen) and seems to focus on her a great deal more than Biden. Although, it is fair to note that many of Warren's facts and comparisons and contrasts are legitiment arguments/statements.
    Now, pushing all of that aside reveals the bigger issue and Clare's most important point/question... Is this fair journalism or sloppy speculation? It is mentioned that Hillary has stated herself she will not be running in the next election. There is clearly no evidence that Biden will be participating in the next election. Therefore, is any of this necessary? In some ways it is. People will automatically be considering the next candidates and pondering the future. For those, this article will give them something to think about and consider - something they will want to read regardless of the lack of evidence supporting the speculation. This, though, leads to the article being mainly entertainment opposed to newsworthy, factual information. It is something to satisfy the readers while gaining attention and an audience, despite the fact that it is mainly just "sloppy speculation".

    ReplyDelete

  12. In my opinion I see this article as a "sloppy speculation" of the possible democratic candidates in the 2016 presidential election. This article shows an obvious favoring for Hillary Clinton by describing Biden as someone "who has stumbled badly in two presidential runs," and Hillary as "experienced, probably tougher than Biden and surely more popular." The audience can easily verify whom the writer believes will be the democratic nominee for the next presidential election.

    Although this article does pose the interesting question of who could be the next democratic nominee I find it serves mostly as entertainment. The presidential inauguration just happened early this month and this writer is already debating the possible democratic nominees. I think writers as well as citizens should concentrate on current political and social issues in our nation rather than concern ourselves with the next presidential election.

    What I find disturbing is the misuse of the photograph the writer uses in his article. This single frame can alter the reality of the situation. Perhaps Biden was patting Clinton on the back as simple gesture among friends. The writer intentionally choose this photo out of the probably hundreds that were taken to complicate this interaction bet Biden and Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with all the previous posts. This seems more like gossip than objective news. Hilary stated that she would not be running so why is the article still aimed towards that. To me, the reporters are creating unnecessary concern or panic in people thinking about the candidates for the next election. Which brings me to wondering why this story was run right now after last weeks new was completely dedicated to Obama's inauguration. Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Should we dedicate our time to the issues for this current term?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Clare raises a good point about political journalism. Obama was just elected and the campaign articles are over. It is too early to be debating who will be running for the next presidental candidate. This is not important news but just gossip that the journalist felt was a story. To answer Clare's question, I do not see this as fair journalism but as sloppy journalism. Not only does the irrelevance make it sloppy but unproven factual evidence that was used. We have no idea who will be running and if Hillary has made it clear she is not, why are we even discussing her potential term?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Fair or sloppy? That's a great question in regards to this article. To me it seems sloppy and more on the gossip end. Obama was just elected and they are already talking about new candidates. I think that is interesting in itself. I don't think it is fair to Barack Obama to already be talking about who is next. Did anyone else think that in that context of fairness? Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete