# Is this level of media coverage of a President-elect standard? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 20, 2008, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-level-of-media-coverage-of-a-president-elect-standard/473599 "2008-11-20T03:40:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Gestalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/90ced4/32.png) [@Gestalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gestalt)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-level-of-media-coverage-of-a-president-elect-standard/473599/1 "2008-11-20T03:40:40Z")
I feel like daily, or sometimes even more frequently, the mainstream media (by which I mean the NYT and CNN, which is where I get most of my American news, and I assume other outlets are doing the same) are covering every single staff decision that Obama makes, and speculating about the ones that aren’t finalized. Is this typical for a post-election, pre-Inaguration president? Did news outlets buzz over who Bush was maybe considering appointing as Secretary of State, for example? Or is this exceptional, either because the media loves Obama, or because the stakes are higher this time? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-level-of-media-coverage-of-a-president-elect-standard/473599/2 "2008-11-20T03:44:57Z")
At this point in 2000, we still didn’t know who the president elect was going to be. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-level-of-media-coverage-of-a-president-elect-standard/473599/3 "2008-11-20T03:48:27Z")
It is 100% perfectly normal as far as I have been aware since the early 1980’s. If anything, it is much quieter than both Bill Clinton and George W Bush. It ranks it very plain vanilla. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-level-of-media-coverage-of-a-president-elect-standard/473599/4 "2008-11-20T04:16:59Z")
I agree that it seems to be about the same as other transitions, especially when one takes into account that the WH is changing parties. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-level-of-media-coverage-of-a-president-elect-standard/473599/5 "2008-11-20T14:36:55Z")
To the extent that it’s different this time around, that’s a function of the 24-hr news cycle which didn’t exist in 1992. 2000 was, obviously, a special case as \*\*Simplicio \*\*notes. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![shallora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f9ae1b/32.png) [@shallora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shallora)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-level-of-media-coverage-of-a-president-elect-standard/473599/6 "2008-11-20T14:55:09Z")
I’m not sure what you mean by “stakes higher this time.” What do you mean by that? Are you saying that stakes are higher now than . . . . . . in 1964 (Cold War, beginning of Civil Rights movement)? . . . than in 1968 (assassination of Bobby Kennedy that year, Martin L King, escalation of Vietnam War)? . . . than in 1976 (recent resignation of Nixon, oil embargo, superinflation, '70s Recession)? . . . than in 1980 (Iran hostage situation, 12% prime rate, massive unemployment)? . . . than in 1984 (Reagan landslide, foundations of decade prosperity) . . . 1988 (last gasps of USSR and European communism) . . . 1992 (emerging European Union; ridding Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait) . . . 1996 (beginnings of dot-com boom, solidifying NAFTA, low interest rates begin) . . . 2000 (a humiliated Clinton leaves office, new administration takes over after one of the most hotly contested elections of all time; dot-com bust takes place) . . . 2004 (another tight election; war in Afghanistan, Iraq) I think this election is pretty plain vanilla, actually. I’ve lived through most of the transistions above and I’ve got to say this year’s transition coverage of the president-elect is kind of boring comparing to the above ones. Very status quo, my friend. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-level-of-media-coverage-of-a-president-elect-standard/473599/7 "2008-11-20T16:28:42Z")
> [@Gestalt](#): > > Did news outlets buzz over who Bush was maybe considering appointing as Secretary of State, for example? Remember that Colin Powell was the first African-American Secretary of State. It was most certainly a big deal.