Letters to the Editor
gradysu
Published Letters: 156 Editor's Choice: 40
-
Chris Matthews wondering aloud if he should go home...
[Read the article: Chris Matthews is right ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...was the most intelligent thing I've ever heard him say.
I also loved his further exchange with Brokaw, when he defended his obsession with polls by saying that a lot of universities rely on these polls for their "branding." Chris Matthews, academic benefactor!!
Anyway, is "branding" really the business universities are supposed to be in? And isn't most polling done by private-sector firms, including, of course, NBC?
Keith Olbermann was no prize, either. After devoting a good chunk of his Monday night show to writing off Hillary as a candidate (he pretty much predicted she'd lose New Hampshire in a big way, and then pointed out that no candidate has recovered from the one-two punch of losing both Iowa and NH, and then hauled out some "experts" to back up his postulating), he then snarkily asked every Clinton supporter he interviewed last night if they "seriously" were trying to "pretend" this was a comeback by Hillary, presumably because she used to be viewed as the frontrunner. Yes, Keith, it was a comeback -- and in light of the media hysteria to consign her campaign to the political dustbin, it was one of Lazarus-like proportions.
Ironically, it was the Hillary haters in the media -- with Chris Matthews (who seems incapable of saying her name without working either "strident" or "shrill" into the sentence) leading the pack -- who made this such a spectacular comeback. Had they merely reported the poll results and moved on -- instead of rampantly speculating if her campaign was over/she would drop out/she would fire all her staff/she would retire to Elba -- her victory still would have been surprising in light of the polls, but it wouldn't have had nearly the drama that it did.
You know what word I heard only once in all the coverage last night? WRONG. As in, we were WRONG. To paraphrase the Munchkins: We weren't merely nearly wrong, we really were sincerely wrong.
The only person I heard say it, astonishingly, was Pat Buchanan!! And it's a pretty pathetic day when he's the voice of reason in the punditry profession.
Dan Abrams of MSNBC, whose show followed Olbermann's dismissal of Hillary on Monday night, was the only one I heard saying, "Hold on a minute -- maybe we shouldn't write Hillary off before, oh, I don't know, A SINGLE VOTE has been cast in ANY primary." Good for him. He was removed enough from the howling political-pundit pack to see things clearly. But what a sad commentary that he felt compelled to lead his show by pointing out what should have been obvious to any actual reporter.
But maybe losing Iowa was the best thing for Hillary, as she's now making herself more accessible to the media (maybe she should give them nicknames and pat them on the head, the way Bush did!!). Because it's obvious that you can't win the Presidency without winning the popularity contest among the Heathers (of both genders) who make up our press corps.
-
Sadly, Chris' mancrushes DO matter...
[Read the article: Even in defeat, Chris Matthews says, Obama "incredibly attractive"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...as they influence his coverage, and media coverage influences elections. And his and Joe Scarborough's comments this morning were classic cases of bandwagon-jumping: they've rarely if ever had a fair word to say about Hillary, and Chris's aggressively misogynistic comments about her are especially offensive. (Words like "shrill" and "strident" frequently pepper his commentary about her.)
-
Campaigns and the media have different responsibilities
[Read the article: And sometimes, people are just wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The rampant speculation about Hillary's campaign -- including that she was firing her staff, out of money, thinking of pulling out of some states or the race as a whole, etc., was irresponsible and indefensible. As is the obsession with chewing over poll numbers and other horserace aspects of the campaign at the expense of covering issues.
What difference does it make if Hillary's people also thought she was going to lose? They are campaign workers. They have to prepare for every eventuality, and they are by nature somewhat tunnel-visioned. It's the media's job to report the FACTS. Not to coronate one candidate before a single vote has been cast in ANY primary.
This whole sorry affair epitomized pack journalism at its worst. To try to defend it by saying that the Hillary campaign was also caught up in the frenzy is nothing short of ridiculous. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. Eat your share of crow, and then move on and try to do better from now on.