Post-Election Blog – Who REALLY had Influence?

Looking at the election in hindsight, perhaps it is most interesting now to talk about who were truly the most influential people, events, and media?

It’s interesting to note that, during and after the election, the true winner was pollster Nate Silver –who had predicted all results correctly for each state in the U.S.   While not everyone looked to him for results, it is clear that – going forward – he will have tremendous influence on media coverage.

Similarly, it’s interesting to note how well television coverage did – as viewers tuned in to see how the election was going. According to the New York Times, over 66 billion people watched the results on television.   NBC News “won” with their election night coverage, according to Nielsen data, with approx. 12.1 million viewers.  This was higher than the audience that viewed Fox News Channel (approx. 11.5), thought it was – in fact – their biggest primetime audience ever.

In addition, it appears that 31 million tweets showed the influence of social media on election coverage.  And the Twitter world was “on fire” with speculation that Diane Sawyer was perhaps under the influence of alcohol. 

Even more interesting to note was how television coverage was “reacting” to news on Twitter.  For example, Brian Williams had to “shootdown a Twitter rumor about NBC calling the Senate race in Massachusetts for Elizabeth Warren.”   While NBC did call the state for Warren later, it was interesting to note their reaction to – and correction of  - incorrect information flying around the Twittersphere. 

A similar reaction came from Tom Brokaw, who called the election results “schizophrenic” and then came back to retract his statement after a deluge of social media comments and reactions.  He apologized on air for using the term.  Long live the new power and influence of social media!   

The Hollywood Reporter, interestingly enough, covered how the media reported the election results around the world.  It led in the BBC’s morning coverage with their Washington D.C. correspondent (Adam Brookes) noting estimates of campaign spending of “at least $3 billion.”  He went on to mention that “Americans spend $6.5 billion a year on Halloween costumes and candy,” to put the amount in perspective, however.   

That keeps it all in perspective now, doesn't it?