Obama ads on media websites stir questions
Flush with cash and savvy about the web, Barack Obama's campaign bought large banner ads on 26 local media websites in Ohio and Texas that blare the message: "Vote for Barack Obama."
Now, some in the journalism community are questioning the propriety of the TV, radio, and newspaper sites featuring the multimedia ads for one political candidate on the eve of crucial contests in the two big states.
Bill Mitchell writes in a column on the website of The Poynter Institute that the ad, which runs with a small disclaimer that it is a paid political advertisement, is striking for its "prominence and interactivity."
Website visitors who click on the ad see and hear Obama and there's also a feature to find the nearest polling place. It appears on the homepages of newspaper websites, including that of the Akron Beacon Journal.
Mitchell raises a series of questions, which he sent to editors and news directors at several of the sites. Among them: How they decided to accept the ad, and whether that call would have been different if it had attacked Clinton? How much risk is there that readers might interpret the ad as a tacit endorsement? Would the decision have been different if the economic climate were different?
Full disclosure: A smaller Obama banner ad appears at the top of the Globe's politics webpage.



OK... so why doesn't Clinton but some ad space? Do we say that Fox Sports is risking impropriety by allowing Clinton to buy blocks of time?
Can we go back to talking about substantive issues?
great comments.
BTW guys I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama’s Fundraising and other current happenings on the campaign. I haven’t seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM.
Check out the article “Follow the Money” on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165, “Bush’s Twin and the G.O.P.” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=172 and “Barack Obama’s Apotasy” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=101
Check their “Political Analysis” and "Humor" sections for other striking perspectives and comedic analysis on both parties.
He's a used car salesman...come on down!
I feel it is the media's responsibility to remain completely objective when reporting news, political or not. To have a banner promoting one candidate over another anywhere on the web site sends a tell-tale message of endorsement--and the reader inevitably has to wonder about the media's impartiality on the subject.
I have seen the way the Boston Globe has portrayed Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama; by posting pictures of Obama coming across as calm and cool while Clinton is captured in an unflattering position with the word "attacks" right over her head as part of a headline. These "subtle" editorial decisions are a clear sign of bias, and I strongly disagree with such tactics.
Pray tell. What questions are raised. It seems like this is a web ad for Obama. What is wrong with that?
I prefer an Obama banner to Hillary running fear adds about phones ringing in the White House in the middle of the night and "your children" being at risk. I am deeply disappointed that Hillary seems to be listening to the old Bill Clinton guard who thinks she should go negative and take Obama out by "any means necessary." I have great respect for Hillary's life and career and have spent this campaign appreciating both candidates. But, I am saddened that "Her voice and heart" that she seemingly found in New Hampshire, seems to be trumped by her Karl Rove-like wonks. She feels to me like she is losing her moral and ethical mooring and that winning at any cost (like including Florida and Michigan, even though all parties agreed not to run) or trying to "steal" delegates right till the end, is part of the old Clinton relativism. Takes me back to the '90s (oh and I am one of those 50 year old feminist, lesbian, liberal, white women types who purportedly should look the other way as Obama inspires and speaks with intelligence, pragmatism, wisdom, and grace. As one Bush used to say, "Not gonna do it." Oh yeah, I'm supposed to follow Saturday Night Live comedians as my political gurus?
Why did John Edwards not endorse Obama?????
That is pure hypocrisy or should I say RACISM?????
They all had similar views almost (at least from what Edwards portrayed) but we are all scratching our heads whether he really meant all the talk or was just looking for votes!!!!!!
#6- I agree. Sadly, the Clintons have made this campaign into a "race war." when she said that only she and Mc Cain are experienced to run for president and that the only experience Obama has is a speech that he made in 2002. To embrace your oponent with whom you have to square off with in November is the hieght of betrayal to the Demoncraatic party. To give give your enemy amunition to defeat you with in the fall is destructive and devisive. In the past, I couldn't understand why people made those comments about Hillary I truly defended her and chalked off these remarks as jealousy by other women,or male sexism, I see that Bill and Hillary are not about the party but about greedy power! Like many of the blogger on other sites have mentioning all along!, Obama would be hounded out of his campaign had he lost 11 primaries in row. He would not stand a chance as an African-American in the running for president. The uphill battle that he is struggling with is that he is trying to run as a candidate for all of America and not an African-American candidate. To think I use to be a Bill and Hillary supporter! I also shake my head now, and say to myself as many African-Americans are thinking, this couple tauted themselves as friends of African-Americans
Clinton's suble signal to the white world when she made that statement was that she and Mc Cain are White so automatically we are better qualified than Barack.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com