Day 2: October 2

33 days to Election Day

The show opens with a recap of what happened in the vice presidential debate, with quite a bit of video of the candidates actually talking. Howard Fineman gives his thoughts on whether Sarah Palin violated the spirit of the debate by not answering questions properly, and whether she did anything to "advance the ticket." This is a good example of the show's use of interpretive journalism, rather than descriptive.

He then does essentially the same thing with Rachel Maddow, talking about whether or not Palin "won" the debate. This is a horse race segment, with a lot of attention paid to winning and losing in the debate, and whether or not the McCain campaign can afford a "draw," or if "every day that they don't gain any ground on Obama [is] a disaster." Maddow says basically that "winning" the debate is a function of getting good sound bites and making news, which is a pretty journalistically biased view of the campaign.

In the next two segments, Olbermann talks to a spokesperson for Obama and one for McCain about the campaigns' thoughts on the debate. This is essentially useless, as both sides just use it as an opportunity to spit out talking points and don't really add anything journalistically to the show. I'd characterize it as interpretive reporting.

Next, Eugene Robinson joins the show to discuss Palin's performance. This is another segment dominated by the horse race analogy -- there's a lot of talk about momentum and who's gaining in the polls, and which side won the debate, and whether a tie is as bad as a loss for McCain. Olbermann refers to it as a "7-6 ballgame" at one point, just to drive the point home.

The show's last two segments feature analysis from Maddow and Pat Buchanan on the debate, focusing on several key moments, including Joe Biden's reference to his family tragedy, and on the overall effect that the debate will have on the campaign. There's a lot of talk about personality vs. policy -- the idea that Sarah Palin is strong because people like her, not because of any ability she would have to make good policy. This is an interestingly cynical stance -- an example of journalistic bias. There's also some horse race analogy near the end, where Maddow says that she thinks that the campaign wasn't changed, but that nobody lost.

This episode was dominated by interpretive journalism -- almost every segment was just a parade of commentators offering their take on how they thought the debate went and what they think will come of it later. There's also a lot of talk about winning and losing, momentum, and other elements of the game schema.