Brendan R. Watson

Today a colleague asked if I had seen Obama on 60 Minutes on Sunday, and I retorted that if I watched Obama every time he was on T.V. I would do nothing else.

I was only half-joking, but hadn’t really stopped to think about the concept of Obama’s media overexposure until tonight. I hadn’t planned on watching his prime-time press conference. I had studying to do. But I turned on NPR while I was making dinner and I was hooked. I had been very skeptical of Obama’s budget and its effect on the health of the economy down the road. I feel that we’re spending too much money to fix the economy instead of fixing our abuses of the economy (over consumption). But Obama did explain the rationale of his budget and some of its nuanced mechanics in ways I hadn’t heard in other sound-bites, mostly in my sporadic morning consumption of CNN and NPR while I get ready for work in the morning.

Despite having an essay to work on, listening to his speech was very interesting and worthwhile. Maybe it didn’t convince me completely, but I feel this president is actually intellectually honest and gives us legitimate differences of opinion to base our debate on, instead of forcing down our throats a self-serving ideology. But does the substance of the debate get lost in his media exposure, especially on ESPN and “The Tonight Show?” All we all too prepared to tune him out, even when he offers serious substance?

I first dismissed the notion when I heard it discussed on CNN last week, but having nearly missed a great opportunity to hear the important issues of our country discussed in real terms, I realized my own exhaustion with Obama-mania has gotten the best of me. Politico offers a thoughtful discussion/critique of the Obama’s media strategy.

Good post from Innovation in College Media: Can newspapers learn anything from the Obama campaign? Number one suggestion: Excel at leadership:

Excel at leadership: Whatever you think of his politics, Obama led his campaign with poise and calm. While John McCain “suspended” his campaign to deal with the financial crisis, Obama maintained a calm head and famously said “a president should be able to do two things at one time.” Obama’s top advisers, too, kept cool heads – Axelrod, Plouffe, Gibbs – were cool heads in the midst of a tempestuous campaign.

Newspaper leadership doesn’t seem too calm right now. They chase quarterly profit margins by laying off hundreds of workers, producing short-term gains with long-term harmful consequences for their products. In this way, their actions are more in line with the McCain campaign’s “news cycle” approach to the election.

Bryan is commenting on leadership at the institutional level. But leadership at the personal level is just as important. The idea that good reporters must make good editors (and by extension good managers) has created a generation of too often toxic leaders, who are ill-equipped to exercise steady leadership, particularly on a personal level. The notion was that good journalism could substitute for good management. Well these days, that doesn’t cut it: Newsrooms need both.

Obama won not because he reinvigorated our trust in the political system, but he spoke to individuals’ concerns and built trust that he’d personally address those concerns to the best of his ability. How many of us have experienced that type of leadership in the newsroom? Yet many newsrooms are simply changing around seats under the name of “reorganization” instead of identifying who the truly managers are and putting them at the center of innovation in the newsroom. That approach is only going to deepen the whole.