by SusanG, DAILYKOS, August 23, 2008
Two stories about planned coverage of the Democratic National Convention hit me upside the head this morning.
j
First, from U.S. News & World Report's Washington Whispers column:
Rocked by warnings that it will cost news organizations $50,000 more per reporter to cover Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. John McCain, a growing number of journalists and press pundits are questioning why the media is staffing up coverage of the political conventions where little major news is expected. At least one paper and several Washington bureaus, we're told, have budgeted only $100,000 for political coverage, and their convention teams will eat most of it, leaving little to put reporters on the campaign trail. [Emphasis added.]Seriously? A convention team will eat "most" of a $100,000 newspaper budget? In other words, $50,000 plus?
Good Lord. No wonder traditional media outlets are tanking. Not only are they filled with sycophantic stenographers, they are working with outrageously bloated budgets. How can you possibly send a reporter or two to a five-day convention and rack up a $50,000 bill? Now maybe each outlet is sending ... I don't know ... 20 reporters each, in which case the per-journalist cost is obviously less but the decision exponentially more stupid.Contrast this with a story about bloggers going to the convention in the New York Times today, an article entitled The Year of the Political Blogger Has Arrived: >>MORE
