Exclusive! Way too many Obama TV exclusives this week
There was a time when exclusive meant special, as in "not divided or shared with others."
In the news business "Exclusive!" traditionally means the organization claiming the "Exclusive!" is the only one with it. As in, nobody else has this. Or Exclusive!
But not this week! Oh, no! Here's just a sample:
Exclusive! "KATIE COURIC IS THE FIRST NETWORK ANCHOR TO TALK TO SENATOR BARACK OBAMA WHILE HE IS ABROAD"
"EXCLUSIVE: ABC News' Terry Moran to I'view Sen. Obama in Baghdad"
"ROUGH TRANSCRIPT OF OBAMA'S FIRST INTERVIEW ON INTERNATIONAL TRIP WITH LARA LOGAN -- ON FACE THE NATION - TODAY, SUNDAY, JULY 20"
"TOM BROKAW TO INTERVIEW DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR BARACK OBAMA IN A 'MEET THE PRESS' EXCLUSIVE ON SUNDAY, JULY 27"
Or as NewsBlues.com succinctly put it:
"ABC's Terry Moran landed an EXCLUSIVE interview with Barack Obama yesterday, one day after Lara Logan's EXCLUSIVE interview with Obama on CBS, and one day before Katie Couric's EXCLUSIVE interview with Obama, and two days before Chuck Gibson's EXCLUSIVE interview with Obama, and three days before Brian Williams' EXCLUSIVE interview."
Not to mention Tom Brokaw's Sunday "Meet the Press" Exclusive.
It's ridiculous, of course. A regular TV feeding frenzy. Almost every....
...single thing about the freshman senator this week has been not just exclusive. But Exclusive!
How exclusive can anything be if everyone has one?
Isn't the point of exclusive country clubs, for instance, to keep some people out?
Let's get something clear: Barack Obama, like every other presidential candidate, WANTS to talk in public and get on television. They'll do almost anything to get on television.
Why do you think they have these public forums? And plant questions there? Or go out in the middle of some German platz with people who can't vote over here? Or serve french fries at a drive-in?
Or fly half the night to get up at dawn and chat cheerily with a boneheaded local news anchor about the exact same obvious things they talked about with the late-news anchor in some other place last night?
These candidates will talk to 2-year-olds in strollers in hopes it will look good to the pushing parent and maybe get them photographed. They'd talk to cadavers if it would get them on TV.
So it's no big Exclusive accomplishment to get a presidential candidate on TV. It's free. And millions watch.
All the super-hyped exposure this week is very useful for the Obama campaign, of course. Maybe helps it close that stubborn 30% "commander in chief" gap in the polls with Sen. John McCain.
He was the exclusive major party candidate left campaigning in the old U.S.A. this week while Obama ex post facto found and campaigned in foreign lands, although he'd already announced his findings before leaving.
But absolutely nothing has been exclusive this week.
And you read that here Exclusively!
-- Andrew Malcolm
With a hat tip to our not-too-old buddy, Merv Block, whose fought so hard so long as the standard-bearer of standards in broadcast writing.
Photo credit: CNN
Andrew Malcolm's immigrant parents repeatedly stressed the importance of active participation in a democracy. Early lessons included learning the alphabetical list of states by watching televised roll calls of national political conventions. That childhood exposure led to a lifelong fascination with politics, including 40-plus years of covering them and a brief stint practicing them as press secretary to Laura Bush in 1999-2000. A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Malcolm served on the Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four.
Johanna Neuman is a veteran Washington correspondent for both The Los Angeles Times and USA Today, having covered presidents and politics as far back as Ronald Reagan. A former president of the White House Correspondents Assn., she authored a book on media and foreign policy, “Lights, Camera, Wars.” Most recently she was co-author of the 
Subscribe to this Blog
obviously it is NOT free. it takes what - millions, billions? to afford such a media equipage and EXCLUSIVE treatment. if you asked instead where that money comes from, and chose to explain how it is the people who will pay the bill, that does not figure in trillions, but equates to the loss of their freedom? but the EXCLUSIVE thing has another, very trivial marketing aspect: it's to appeal to people's vanity, to boost the sales of this chic empty necessaire. and to pamper their pride to belong to the exclusive gang, and zip up their minds and tune them in to hypnotic groupthink. the anticonstitutional forces behind the whole scheme, are so exclusive they would not tolerate anyone not to be included - in this exclusive exodus that would forever exclude them from freedom.
Posted by: dave | July 25, 2008 at 03:33 AM
Why is it that 1/2 the country has to disagree for the sake of disagreeing? Obama is best thing since sliced bread and you're just going to say "no"for the sake of saying "no." Obama is overseas trying to show all the naysayers that he has foreign policy chops and 200K Europeans show up to listen to what he has to say. That's what you want in a foreign policy isn't it ? To have the rest of the world respect you and listen to what you have to say? And no, he's not the Messiah, he just looks like a messiah when you put him along side Yosemite Sam.
Posted by: Peter | July 25, 2008 at 03:52 AM
wow--you really don't like obama, do you? good to know. goodbye!
Posted by: kathleen | July 25, 2008 at 04:19 AM
I have read this story exclusively!
Posted by: wiki | July 25, 2008 at 05:46 AM
Don't worry. We reached saturation months ago. No one watches the news anymore because it is all hyperbole.
Posted by: ted | July 25, 2008 at 07:01 AM
I think that it is inappropriate for the media or Obama's campaign to parade around the world as if he were the president elect.
It is a distorted and biased view that is starting to look as if Obama will take the power in his own hands wether elected or not.
Posted by: christophe thomas | July 25, 2008 at 07:08 AM
It's exclusive because he excluded Fox News.
Posted by: Patrick Vick | July 25, 2008 at 07:50 AM
Just a reminder...all the coverage is not the fault of Senator Obama. All the non-coverage is not the fault od John McCain ( well maybe because he really IS boring) But the real fault lies with the Media. Remember these are the same people who gave us a MONTH of Anna Nicole. These are the same people who gave us no real information and were cheerleaders in the run up to the war. Cable news and MSM are just talking heads willing to do and say ANYTHING for screen time. 98% of them are a waste of air. Hard reporting is a thing of the past on TV. Most air "personalities" wouldn't know real journalism if it slapped them (OH! Please do!) in the face. That's why you get comments like a "terrorist fist jab".
Posted by: TJ WILLIAMS | July 25, 2008 at 08:11 AM
I think that Obama's handlers know that he can handle and bully an interviewer in a one-on-one situation. They also know that if he were constantly put before real media scrutiny that he would drown in his lies and double-talk.
Posted by: Brian in NYC | July 25, 2008 at 08:21 AM
Not to be picky, but McCain has had "Exclusive" interviews with the big 3 every night as well...and he will be on ABC This Week "EXCLUSIVE"...and "The Situation Room" tonight EXCLUSIVE. The media does it for both canididates.
Posted by: Steven | July 25, 2008 at 08:46 AM
How trite, yet how mainstream it is today mock and attack Obama's trip. There's a whole lot better that the LA Times could do with its bandwidth - perhaps addressing the cooperation of the US with traditional allies on the environment, international justice, or distribution of wealth.
Given the obvious - 1-on-1 interviews provide exclusive rights and distribution control - how can the major media player in the cradle of modern communications support such a disengenuous "analysis"?
Clearlly graspin at straws, what exactly does Malcom fear or resent? Is the lack of perspective due to an identification with McCain based on age? Or a belief that attacking Obama elevates his status? In any case, this piece is just sad.
Posted by: Steve | July 25, 2008 at 09:01 AM