Over the past week or so, I’ve been a busy little boy dealing with Media requests on how the markets are likely to respond to an incumbent victory or defeat.
Here’s a quick round up . . .
· Investors content to stay the course
· Bettors for Bush
· After bitter campaign, it’s time to govern
· Bush or Kerry? Who cares?
· Taking stock in Texas?
· Economy remains potential wild card
· Those Dark Clouds over the Street
· An end to tech’s job woes?
I’ve been thinking about replacing the tag line for Big Picture: “Will pontificate for food”
Way way back in January, we looked at the question Who’s got juice?
Who influenced coverage the most in the 2004 campaign? There is no doubt that the Media’s coverage of the very close 2000 campaign influenced the outcome; There is perhaps some doubt as to the mass media’s impact on this election. The absence of any of bloggers — especially Markos, Glenn, Eschaton, Andrew, Wonkette, Kevin, Josh, James, Eric — make the entire list suspect.
Regardless, lets take another look at that list (via Newsday) and see how well those old media predictions stacked up:
“Influence can be shaped by new technology (blogging) or old (Rush Limbaugh’s dittoheads). It can rise with the sun (“Today”) or set after dark (“Tonight”). It can get out the votes (Tom Joyner) or effectively convince people why voting is an exercise in utter futility (Jon Stewart). It skews young or old, black or white, Hispanic or Anglo, male or female, rich or poor.
Influence, in other words, is often just a strange and bewildering reflection of our strange and bewildering media landscape that has been balkanized along racial, economic and demographic lines. The consequence of all this noise jostling for our attention is that each of us seeks solace – and most of our information – from just a few sources, and not necessarily the more traditional ones.