Media Studies

I'm not the only person who has felt a little disturbed watching this Travelers Insurance commercial. A girl at Sign of the Whale said something to me when it came on during the NCAA Tournament. The part that gets me is the strange man walking up to children who are out all alone, offers them a ride, and they just hop on with him. Didn't their parents ever tell them not to speak to strangers? I don't mean to sound like I'm sounding disaster alarms, because it is just a commercial, but the thing that always comes to mind when I see it is, "That's really not a good idea, children. Tell him to get lost."

----------

The Washington Post has the first in a series of articles about the disappearance of Chandra Levy and the ensuing investigation. I quote:

"The serial will show how the sensational nature of the media coverage quickly overwhelmed the investigation."

I wonder how the Post will evaluate its own coverage of the case. I seem to remember an article or two showing up in its pages along the way. Who gets labeled "sensational"? I do remember walking the halls of the Rayburn Building that summer and seeing a line of TV cameras outside Gary Condit's office, so the label probably applies to someone out there.

I can confirm that the scandal led to some interesting Letters to Leaders on Congress.org. One asked Condit if he pooped in his pants when he heard a verdict ("Was it large?") and another told him how popular a cute guy like him would be in the big house.

The last serial I paid attention to in the Post was its extremely long and detailed rundown of the DC lobbying industry and the role my former company, Cassidy & Associates, played in the business. I thought they did a pretty good job.

----------

I'm not sure if the current state of the Chicago Cubs qualifies as a media event, but it probably will later this year if the Cubs remain in playoff contention the rest of the season. As you may have heard, the Cubs have not won the World Series since 1908, leading us to the magical 100-year mark. (I once saw a t-shirt that read 1907-08 Back to Back World Champions. I love that stuff). There will be talk of drama and futility and curses and all that on every sports-related (and some non-) that you can think of. So that gives me an excuse to talk about this:

There are those who point to history--ancient and recent--as a reason why the Cubs are of no concern when it comes to the playoffs. They'll choke in big games, lose games they should win, fold when the pressure's on, etc. Whereas some other team--oh, I don't know, let's pick one at random--the St. Louis Cardinals, know how to win and are therefore much better in close games and big games than the Cubs. There's actually an argument to be made for that, seeing as how the Cards are 3 games over .500 in 1-run games, while the Cubs are just one game over.

However, there is zero argument at the moment that can support the Cards actually being a better team than the Cubs. The Cubs have more run, hits, walks, stolen bases and home runs, and a higher batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. Their ERA/runs allowed, hits, and home runs allowed are all lower. The Cubs' run differential is almost five times greater, and a few days ago was exactly six times greater. Don't forget the 5.5 game lead.

There's my small contribution to the best rivalry in the Midwest.