The death of Walter Cronkite not only marks the loss of a great news reporter, but it also appears to symbolize the conclusion of a time when Americans received the majority of their information from newspapers and the evening news. Cronkite gained America’s respect because many saw him as a fair and accurate reporter, not an ideologue. America called him ‘the most trusted man on television’-more so than any network news anchor today. Over the past decade, the internet has eroded the prominence of the evening news by creating a venue for bloggers, online news outlets, and independent journalists to play a significant role in the dissemination of information.

Data still shows that the internet is not king…yet. A Rasmussen survey from July still indicates that more Americans put their trust in network television than the internet for the news. The poll of 1000 adults had 46% agreeing that network television is a “more reliable source of credible news information” followed by 35% siding with the internet and 19% that are unsure.

Also, according to Rasmussen, women are more likely than men to trust the network news. Men are evenly split. At the same time, Democrats favor network news two-to-one compared to Republicans and politically unaffiliated adults who see the two mediums as equal in terms of reliability.

What does all this mean? Two things. First, the data represents an overall decline in the ratings of the major news networks: ABC, NBC, and CBS. Second, it lends credibility to the idea that the declining ratings of the networks have been because of a perceived bias in reporting.

More than half of the Americans surveyed go online almost every day and see online reporting comparable to their local newspaper, contributing to the decline in network viewership.

Furthermore, last August, only 10% of voters said they watched any of the three major anchors every day for information about the election. Where were they getting their news? One place was talk radio, which was grabbing viewers at a rate of two-to-one compared to network news.

All indicators point to the decline in the traditional format of the network news. Many believe the internet and other outlets will eventually replace the TV networks as the standard bearer of news in America. The issue is not if, but when and to what degree, the internet and others will rule the news business.

Who will be the next Walter Cronkite?

You may want to look on YouTube before you turn on your TV.

Ira Teinowitz of Ad Age, writes an interesting behind the scenes piece featuring Fred Davis, who has assumed the role as the RNC Convention’s head of creative.

Davis, a longtime Republican media consultant and the founder of Strategic Perception, has become known for his attention to high quality television production.

Davis has handled media work for the 2004 presidential and does work for several statewide candidates and issue campaigns aside from non-political work in entertainment, corporate and new media. According to Davis’ bio:

SPI was hired to help reinvigorate the sinking Corker campaign just five and a half weeks before the general election. Senator Corker’s victory was the sole shining light for the national Republican Party in 2006. 

Davis also worked as one of the top creative/media consultants for the George W. Bush presidential re-election campaign of 2004, filming the President and First Lady in the White House residence and on the road campaigning. SPI won both the Gold and Silver Pollie Awards for this presidential work. He’s handled the media for winning U.S. Senate campaigns for Elizabeth Dole, Chuck Grassley, Jim Inhofe and more. Davis served as Chief Creative Consultant on the 2008 presidential campaign of Senator John McCain and is now working on 2008 Senate reelection campaigns for Dole, Inhofe, Lamar Alexander and John Cornyn. Also, the branding for Bono’s ONE Campaign, the effort to end worldwide extreme poverty. 

Davis is also the only known political media strategist who has based his consulting operation out of Hollywood.  

Davis’ work is interesting, in that he portrays a unique production style in his TV ads.  Some recognizable traits are large indistinctive backgrounds, different shoot locations, blur lenses (or post-production blur effect), and distinctive brightening and shadow effects.  He’s been also employing the newly popular cut-out still photography effect in his spots for McCain, which is a production effect I plan on writing about in this space this week.

A must read  from this past Sunday’s New york Times is a piece by PAUL VITELLO titled, How to Erase that Smear.  Vitello reminds readers that attack campaigns, enlisted by politicians seeking office, have been around since the days of our founding fathers.  Below I have included excerpts of Vitello’s piece and sprinkled in some of my commentary and analysis.

When Thomas Jefferson found himself accused of planning to burn all Bibles and legalize prostitution if elected president in 1800, he was ready with a counterpunch that might make today’s most vitriolic campaign operatives stop short, if only to gape upon the greatness that once was presidential campaign slander.

Jefferson’s rival, President John Adams, was endowed with a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman”; and if re-elected he would crown himself king; and, by the way, he was “mentally deranged.”

The author of the attacks was not Jefferson himself, of course, but a master poison-pen pamphleteer named James Callender, who, historians have since determined, was bankrolled completely by Jefferson. (For his efforts, Callender spent nine months in prison under the Sedition Act for saying those things about a sitting president; Jefferson pardoned him immediately after defeating Adams and taking office.)

Essentially, negative smear campaigning is as Americana as apple pie and is arguable an older past time than baseball.

(more…)

The 1988 Willie Horton “Weekend Passes” ad will forever be remembered for its effectiveness at driving home a negative message against Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis. The ad was written by Floyd Brown, then a consultant to the National Security Political Action Committee.

Twenty years later, hard at work in Seattle, Brown is working to produce an Obama version of the Dukakis ad. He was interviewed last week by the Seattle Times. 

“I’m going to go dig up the information that the mainstream media is scared of, the McCain campaign finds difficult to deal with, and may make some people feel uncomfortable,” Brown said.

Brown is releasing an ad on his Web site and YouTube every other week and is spreading his message through mass mailers and phone banks. Galleys of his new book, “Obama Unmasked,” are stacked in the barren office he’s renting through November.

Despite modest funding, mainly from online donors, Brown’s efforts have been singled out by the Obama campaign as a prime example of the dangers the candidate faces from attacks by independent groups. 

While the ‘88 Horton ad cost $100,000, Brown is producing everything today on his laptop. While controversial, here are two of his spots that would have the ability to move poll numbers : (more…)

While I already thought most operatives, and most voters for that matter, finally agree that ‘negative ads’ work in demonstrating an effective position about an opponent, here is another argument by a real pro to add to the mix.

Famous and yet equally infamous democratic strategist, MARK PENN, who served as a top adviser to President Bill Clinton and recently to Hillary Rodham Clinton, writes about how negative ads work in today’s POLITICO.

Feel free to read Penn’s full piece after the jump – good stuff here.

(more…)