The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
Cubs Combat Casino
Notre Dame Fan Takes It Too Far, Allegedly Punches Clausen
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
It doesn't matter that his campaign was able to wrangle a whopping $150 million in September; Barack Obama is going to make media members dig deep into their pockets to attend Obamapalooza on Election Night. While logistics as to whether or not attendees will need tickets is still being sorted out, one thing is for sure: the media will be paying high prices to attain their passes. Depending on what amenities are needed, media members will pay from $715 to $1,815 for access. In addition, the media will have to pony up another $935 just to get access to the press tent to talk to campaign officials. There will be a free access area, but the press release from the Obama campaign describes it as, "outdoors, unassigned and may have obstructed views...standing room only.” So kind of like those shitty seats way up in the first level of Wrigley where you can't even see the scoreboard.
As one might imagine, this is not going over well. Lynn Sweet, for one, was quite unhappy with the arrangements.
This is an outrageous pay to play plan that caters to national elite outlets with deep pockets.All in all, we agree with Sweet. Sure, they're paying a hefty price to take over Grant Park, but gouging the media won't be a good start to that relationship if Obama wins. And then there's this bit of info, also from Lynn the Perturbed:I am not asking for a free ride--but this is pricey and does not take into account some reporters won't need power, cable, internet or food but will crave the access more than the food. As I was talking to this unnamed spokesman about this enormously expensive set-up, he did say--that a news outlet could rotate people in and out of the tent on that one credential. Great.
Obama's top donors--not the masses who donated the $5, $10 and $25 the campaign brag about--will have VIP access throughout election night and received an early heads up a week ago to plan to spend Election Night in Chicago.If this holds true, it sure as hell doesn't help Barack shake that "elitist" label. We wonder what Pearl Jam thinks...
Image by Montauk Beach
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
And we wonder why media relies heavily on ad revenues rather than delivering the story.
That's seriously crap.
This is just a little bit presumptuous. . .
What if Joe the Plumber derails the Obama express?? Is the fee refundable? :-)
There is an option with no cost. The $935 includes four credentials which breaks down to less than $235 per person. While not cheap will definitely make the random "citizen journalist" think twice before trying to get prime access to the event. I don't think that these prices are out of line. A blog doesn't make you a journalist. The campaign will still loose money on the gig regardless.
Sorry to burst your bubble, bobnweave, but since this isn't the first election I've ever followed, I'll clue you in:
Both candidates in the presidential election always hold a giant rally on election night.
Both
Always
Both candidates, always.
So, it isn't presumptuous at all, just good planning. The way McCain is running his campaign, he and Palin will be scrambling at the last minute to hold their rally at the Holiday Inn in downtown Phoenix.
Holiday Inn sounds reasonable, but I think that Sam Wurzenberger, will invite them all to Tool-ee-doo for
pit roasted moose burgers and some Natty-Bo...oh, wait...that's Baltimore.
Nevermind.
Psst - Mr. Axelrod - It was a bad idea to let the fundraisers plan this event. It reeks of Rahm Emanuel, Daley and a slight bit Bush.
If Obama wins - they need to eat this one and let people celebrate. Let the media witness and try not to spin it for just one night. A black man from Chicago will be POTUS. The party will be insane. Let it be and let the people enjoy it.
I'm picturing a massive, drunk crowd tipping over the Bean.
Maybe you Chicagoist can prove me wrong by providing some ultra-insightful coverage and speech analysis that requires being there in person, but generally speaking, mid-range bloggers getting pissed about not being able to get to one of the highest profile events in four years time is a bit ridiculous considering the freebie-to-substance exchange rate the other 364 days of the year seems a hair ridiculous. What's more, this isn't going to be anything insightful: it's either a "we won, you guys are awesome, and here's to a wonderful four years", or it's "damn, we lost, thanks anyway." I doubt a lot of folks will actually be missing much beyond free food and drinks, networking opportunities, and feelin' special.
enneyykay - As far as I know, there are no plans for anyone from Chicagoist to attend in the first place. And we don't consider Lynn Sweet to be a "mid-range blogger" as she writes for the Sun-Times. Unless you consider the Sun-Times a mid-range newspaper, in which case we're willing to go with that.
We (and be we I mean I) will be watching the election results from the comfort of my living room.
Sorry, but Obama should be paying the press in return for all of the fawning coverage they have provided in the past few months.... not charging them exhoritant fees to cover his anticipated "victory" party.
Also, I think the huge election night rally is a relatively recent development. I think Clinton (the president, not the senator) started the whole outdoor election night rally thing in 1992. If you look at the old youtube clips of the Reagan/Carter election in 1980 and Reagan/Mondale election in 1984, you will see that they spoke on election night in what looks to be hotel ballrooms.
Of course, if Barack loses, is there any concern that such a large crowd of angry Democrats might start a riot? Just asking?
Of course, if Barack loses, is there any concern that such a large crowd of angry Democrats might start a riot? Just asking?
I'm picturing a massive, [angry] crowd tipping over the Bean.
Either way, the Bean is going down.
Marcus: Lynn Sweet's got no right to complain about the price. She works for a major metropolitan newspaper which can afford this sort of stuff. It's highly unlikely that the Sun Times will fail to send anyone to the event - matter of fact, they're likely to send multiple people with a ton of pricey gear. What she seems to be complaining about is that the *good* spots are *very* expensive. Unless you're a photographer, this has precious little to do with how well you're going to cover a one-way speech from a major political personality. Indeed, the writeup doesn't get done on the spot: instead, the crowd is gauged for reactions, the general demeanor of the speaker and other on-stage persons is briefly surveyed, and that's that. Analysis of the speech itself is better (and most easily) done after the fact. There is precious little that requires a newspaper reporter to be anywhere near front and center.
And that's why I think your baseball analogy is actually pretty good: to me, it seems that Sweet's pissed because she has to play second-banana to folks from the big news outlets. She shouldn't be shocked: it's an event of not just national but international relevance. Never mind that the candidate's actual supporters who might want to be there and aren't getting paid squat for it likely won't be able to get within a scant pube's distance of the whole soiree, the pro reporter must have the big event experience to which they've grown accustomed.
As for Chicagoist not being there? Fair enough. Again, I think the whole thing's going to be the usual dead self-congratulatory business these things almost always tend to be, and you're probably better off watching at home like the rest of us rather than being down in the throng of it all. But that considered, I still don't grasp why you're siding with Sweet: this event is being thrown *for* the national and international level press, and that crowd demands crazed spectacle at the end of the horse race. What's the story?
enneyekay - i find a problem with the fact they're charging media members at all, frankly. this is, i assume, where Obama will give his victory or concession speech, assuming this isn't a repeat of 2000. I also find it a little strange with the tier-system. it feels like a carnival: pay money for admission, now pay money for food, now pay money for the rides, etc. Like having to pay the money to talk to campaign aides? Really? It seems like a move made to tailor to the upper-crust when Obama is selling himself to America as a man of the middle class. It goes against what he's presented us of his image.
Marcus: I can sort of see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's a ludicrous notion to charge members of the media for a *post-campaign* event when what they expect is a gala press schmooze session. It'd be disingenuous and downright stupid for the Obama campaign to set aside money donated by his supporters for a glorified victory or concession speech when that money was donated with the intention of being used for campaigning. What you've got here is a politician acknowledging that the media at large expects fireworks-plus so they've got not only stellar content as the last returns come in, but something nice for the media personalities in attendance. If the media doesn't like it, they can opt out, report off the footage/text/audio that comes down the wire services they already buy into, and send a message that this type of crap is wasteful and unnecessary. But I can pretty well guarantee you that that's not going to happen, because mass media at large wants and needs the spectacle it's grown accustomed to over the decades.
No offense intended at all, mind you. You're quite entitled to your opinions, and I appreciate your further explanation of said opinions. Lesser journalists would tear off in a rage or ignore the questions. Thanks for your insight. :)
enneyekay - none taken! a rare sane, thoughtful discourse on a Chicagoist forum.
i will say the caveat is that it is Obama's party and he can do whatever he wants and charge whatever he wants. I guess, to me, it seems a bit incongruous with the image they've projected.
That said, you've definitely got a point. and maybe Lynn and others find it galling that they can't get another free ride like they did on O Force One.
If this holds true, it sure as hell doesn't help Barack shake that "elitist" label.
I don't really understand how charging members of the media - who are basically there to make a profit off of their presence (since that's what media does) - and letting the average every day supporter in for free, makes you an elitist. To me that actually seems like the exact opposite.
Given the fact that I've contributed money to the Obama campaign, I greatly appreciate that my donations are being used to win him the election rather than pay for Grant Park and that I'll have the option of attending the great big Obamapalooza there on election night without paying.
I don't have a problem with this at all as I think this event is more about celebrating the hard work that this campaign and its supporters have done over the past 2 years to lead up to this night. It's not about making breaking news that needs to be covered by every news outlet the moment it happens. The TV networks will most likely all pay for the access because they can afford to, which will mean that anyone that wants to see the speech will be able to from the comfort of their homes.