American Forum tonight: Were the media soft on Barack Obama? How should he deal with them? Pose a question or make a comment HERE for the live panel......

Hit "reply to this" below to pose your question or express an opinion. It may be used on air.

*Sponsored by the American University School of Communication and WAMU 88.5

Politics and Pundits: The Promises of the New Presidency
and the Press
Date: Nov. 11
Time: 6:30-8 p.m.
Where: American University Campus, Ward Circle Building, Room 1
Live on WAMU 88.5 Channel One and at the WAMU 88.5 website

Washington is in for change in January, with the election of Sen. Barack Obama as president. What will the effect of the most covered presidential campaign in history be? Who will be the players for the next four years? What were the key media moments? Were the media stricken with Obamamania, as has been charged? Or, were they even-handed in their coverage of an unprecedented wild ride of a political season? A statesman of broadcast news, a political consultant, a media analyst, a columnist, and an up-and-coming politics writer will look at these questions in an American Forum **live on WAMU 88.5** just a week after the election.

Guests:
Bob Schieffer, host of CBS News' Face the Nation and chief
Washington correspondent, CBS News
Dotty Lynch, executive in residence at SOC and CBS News
political consultant
Tom Rosenstiel, director, Project for Excellence in Journalism
Gebe Martinez, regular contributing columnist, Politico
Tony Romm, editor of politics@theEAGLE

Mark McDonald
American Forum Moderator
Director of Programs, WAMU 88-5 FM
Broadcast Journalist in Residence, American University
Washington DC

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by wonkguy on November 11, 2008 at 10:42am: Please, they man ran for two years in both a hotly contested primary and general elections. This is a silly question and I find it interesting that we are not asking "Why wasn't the media tougher on the Bush administration regarding Iraq?" or "Where has the media been while the Treasury and Fed run amok?". This is a silly forum, the man hasn't even taken office yet. Give me a break!

Permalink Reply by Mark McDonald WAMU 88.5 on November 11, 2008 at 11:04am: Econ622 -

I'm assuming from your post you disagree with the Ombudsman for the Washington Post, then, when she concluded her own newspaper could have done better to achieve a balance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2...

Permalink Reply by Caryl on November 11, 2008 at 11:35am: econ622 said:
Please, they man ran for two years in both a hotly contested primary and general elections. This is a silly question and I find it interesting that we are not asking "Why wasn't the media tougher on the Bush administration regarding Iraq?" or "Where has the media been while the Treasury and Fed run amok?". This is a silly forum, the man hasn't even taken office yet. Give me a break!

Totally agree....The Press failed so miserably in the run up to the war in Iraq, it doesn't deserve the title; The Press, anymore....

What coverage was missed in the two year election process---McCain and Palin dissolved into code---"so happy to be with real Americans...." What coverage was missed? They ran on running against Obama---what press coverage was missed?

The American press should take a long hard look at itself....looks from here that it is The Corporate Press, looks like
Cat Got Your Tongue? Press.....

don't worry about stellar Obama---wonder what happened to "the press" in the vote mis-counting, read: manipulation, of the preceding two "elections".

The Press has to earn its way back, if you ask me.....

Permalink Reply by charlene on November 12, 2008 at 10:49am: The media was soft on Sarah Palin which was painfully sexist to watch. The media could have been harder on Obama but to what end? Obama would be elected by a landslide anyway and the Republicans are so out of touch they never saw it coming. The media is as out-of-touch as the Republican party.

I hope the media returns to asking hard questions of the those in power, especially now that the government is doling out hundreds of billions of dollars to corporations that apparently cannot read market conditions and did not prepare for the obvious changes that took place in our marketplace. The media should be watching the average American to understand the next direction of this country.

Permalink Reply by Caryl on November 12, 2008 at 6:57pm: Is it that they were soft on Sarah Palin or just scratching their collective heads----is this for real?

Somebody on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me called her Caribou Barbie.... gotta admit, it was funny.......

I know I will never look at Alaska the same---first time a felon in the Senate....they returned that bridgeman to nowhere, Don Young back to Congress....I say they're hopeless.....but maybe this will get the state of Alaska off the public dole.
And we need to get car makers off the public dole---I am totally against a bailout for corporate egotists who did not see the writing on the wall lo these thirty years. The arrogantly turned a profit with SUV's never giving any thought to engineering a safe green car---and now they are whining and needing a bailout.

This whole bailout thing---quick quick, has to be done by Monday---is like trying to stop a falling sharp knife mid-air....let it fall.....let it finish falling......

Permalink Reply by Karl Hille on November 12, 2008 at 8:21pm: I'd rather see the media beat up the front runner so badly that all we ever have any more is closely contested elections where presidents are picked by the supreme court, because reflecting the actual public excitement over a candidate for president might appear biased.

Of course If he were running against Screwtape himself, I'm sure Screwtape's party would loudly lament how unfair the press was being to the minions of Satan everywhere.

Not that I'm drawing any comparison, but come on. There was a national fervor over this guy, and once it was clear he was out in front, the press did get more critical, more abrasive. Of course, most of the people crying most loudly about press unequal treatment are those who still cling to the notion that Obama is a muslim/arab/socialist/non-citizen intent on destroying the United States of America because he hates White People.

I'm sure that attitude did not get fair air time this election cycle. Neither did the GOP department of promulgating unsubstantiated rumors, or the demonized KKK/Aryan Nation people. Perhaps we should have given equal air time to the notion that Obama was the pitbull of the Jews?!?!? (take that out of context, why don't you, and say Karl Hille is a neo-nazi)

Just because political opinions are out there doesn't mean they deserve equal air time.

Perhaps he got a lighter shake because he was offering something different from the neo-con spaghetti-logic pasta of destroying the federal government so those with money can make more money at the expense of those without, all in the name of freedom.

Maybe he got further because he wasn't holding to the notion that the American People exist to serve the Free Market, or the Big Brother government constructed by George W. Bush.

Maybe he got further because he said we can make a difference - to a Democratic party that has been setting itself up for failure since before Jimmy was in the White House.

You figure it out..

How about - now that he's been elected - we support our president elect, rather than Monday-morning quarterbacking and hand-wringing as the low-brow descendants of Limbaugh fling vitriol and bitterness as if the nation still cares.