Two Excellent Examples of Campaign Journalism


Just one day after I defended campaign journalism by saying that there aren’t enough differences between Clinton and Obama to produce the in-depth pieces the public is craving, I’ve found two such pieces. But by highlighting the many minor differences between Clinton and Obama (and in one of the two articles, Edwards), the pieces kind of underscore my point.

The first piece comes from the Las Vegas Sun. It acknowledges that the candidates basically have the same goals when it comes to domestic policy, but drills down on six issues and makes note of the differences on the margins. At times, the best the Sun can do is point to small differences in emphasis or focus. But if you’re interested in learning more about Obama vs. Clinton vs. Edwards on economic issues, health care, education, nuclear power, internet gambling, and immigration, check out the Sun‘s good work.

The second comes from CQ Politics, where they’ve taken a long look at Clinton’s and Obama’s records in the Senate. Neither candidate, CQ argues, really buck the party line all that often, and neither has taken the lead on major pieces of legislation. Clinton is a more incremental in her approach than Obama, but neither can rightfully claim to be a true “agent of change.” In fact, John McCain meets the definition they both put forward on the stump better than they do. It’s quite long and quite good; find it here.

So, yes, you can do in-depth pieces on the candidates. But you can’t do all that many: now that the Sun and CQ Politics have done these pieces, they won’t be able to do something similar anytime soon. If they want to publish every single day…. they have to take rightly deserved kudos and head back to the horserace.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.