Thought the "Horse Race" article (http://nationaljournal.com/powers.htm) was interesting in making the comparison to how the media is covering Obama and McCain's campaigns, but don't have a real-life perspective to compare it to since I was born in the mid-70's. I'd be interested to hear from other classmates who did experience the 60's to see whether this article hits on some good points, or whether the columnist is just reminisicing and making connections when there are no connections.

G. Feldmann, 3/3/08

That was an interesting read. Just before reading about the "60s fetish," I was scanning the photo slide show posted in this class link

Politics - Candidates Final Push in New Hampshire. There was one of Obama waving to a crowd next to a limo. It looked as if a Secret Service guy was about to open the door for him. I glanced at the image and immediately thought he looked vulnerable. I did, unprompted, think of the King assassination.

Now that I've read the article you mention about the 60's fetish, I know I made the connection because I was born in 1964 and a child in the 1960s ;) I actually think that the conclusion of its author William Powers is too facile. Since there is a history of barrier-breaking politicians getting shot in this often-segregated country, as recently as four decades ago, it is not such a stretch to be concerned that it could happen again. Power's comparison to the 1920s vs. 1960s at the end of the story does not fit. He talks about flappers and Harding, but those things are not in the same category as a politician being shot.

Michelle. 3.3.08

I just went to this link www.iptv.org/campaign08/ and read the interview with Miami columnist Leonard Pitt. While he, too, talked about Obama and his need for increased security, I thought it was an interesting example of how news organizations of all types are broadening their skill sets (just as the Kip fellows are working to do) and posting content that is not part of a traditional focus.

The Iowa Public Television interview with Pitts had some interesting parts, but as a print piece in a Q & A format, it was a bit of a ramble. It did not seem condensed as a newspaper or radio or TV version of the same interview might have been. 

At first I wondered if there was a hazard in this profusion of mediocre news content on the Web. Instead, it does seem that posting something fresh, even when it needs an edit, is better than not posting. I'd be interested in reading or hearing any arguments to the contrary. Are there hazards to posting rambling interviews, or other unpolished news bits? Given that this digital news media revolution still seems at its beginning, I curious to see how online news will read and look as we all get a bit more sophisticated. 

Michelle. 3.3.08