Letters to the Editor
-
Glenn's basic argument is correct --- but I think the "examples" are not.
Glenn is absolutely, positively, and dangerously correct: our media "stars" love the power to choose who the rest of us should favor with our votes, and are unabashedly doing so --- without, of course, even attempting to analyze the issues themselves. And they love being the story. I disagree with Glenn's insistence that Senator Clinton is their victim -- I believe strongly that the supposed inevitability of her nomination was based on the media fascination with the possibility of a female president; and the gentle treatment of Senator Obama must have the same source. But the ABC debate last weekend demonstrated clearly that the "star" was supposed to be the questioner/moderator -- who relentlessly ignored John Edwards, allowed frothy responses from Clinton and Obama, and gave Governor Richardson more time than he could conceivably merit (watching people pass gas isn't news.) But Glenn's observation -- that those who are supposed to find "news" are rooted in the grand journalistic tradition of Entertainment Tonight and People Magazine, and wouldn't know how to report a candidate's fundamental beliefs, ideals, policies, or methods; is absolutely correct. They are happy to completely ignore the positions of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Huckabee - in favor of their looks, or Clinton's support for the Bush Administration in favor of her tears, and so it goes.
-
<*strong*>Be! Bop!<*strong*>
You are beginning to sound cranky, but I'm beginning to feel crankier. I'm a frustrated bloodhound following the trail of your stinky leg and rotting foot as you double back and forth over your own trail. Leaving little scent drips here and there for me to chase and follow as you weave your trickster path through these threads. If this weary bloodhound catches up with you it's likely to take a CHOMP out of more than your stinky leg. Bloodhound say, WOOF, means come clean about your leg. Woof?, means see doc today? The Hounds of Hell will chase you through these threads until you exhaust your sneaky self and the good dogs. No fair to leave good dogs belly down and panting of thirst and fatigue. Dang dogs. They'll not give up the hunt. Your smelly self will keep them on your tail and your trail. Time to give in and drag yourself to the white coat warden. Surrender time, bebop. When? Today? Now? When?
-
I don't know if anyone pointed this out yet.
I just think it needs to be said.
I got a notice from Black Box Voting just before the NH primary that revealed that the whole state's optical scan voting system is supplied by one guy's company and that the machines they use are the exact same ones that the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" showed on video being hacked.
One of the common signs of a suspicious election result, as with Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry and others, is a very close result that stumps the polls.
Other than the polling discrepancy there is no evidence that the results have been tampered with. I suppose it is safer and easier to just bash the pundits and the polling because they deserve it no matter what.
I just thought it would be worth pointing out that both the Clinton Democratic machine, and the Republicans, both have a vested interest in Hilliary over Obama and Edwards. Who is in charge of counting the votes again?
It is unfortunate that we need to question election results these days but this is what it has come to.
-
Do you really feel there has been no significant worsening of attitude in the MSM?
I guess I'm old.
There is no guesswork involved. Your political memory is rough twice as long as most of ours, and you know it.
I've been following elections since the days of Harry Truman. It's a rare thing indeed to find that the press hasn't anointed one candidate or another at various premature stages in the elections. And first one side, then the other starts in on the "bias in the media" theme and how they are unfairly influencing elections. -- Wangsness
What we were taught in high school American History (c. 1977) was that the press was widely derided for its "Dewey WINS!" headlines back in the day. Now, in the electronic din of the MSM, similar stupidities seem to go unnoticed.
My political awareness only goes back to the mid-70s, but I believe I've seen a clear deterioration in news reporting since the mid-90s. It is their normalization of idiocy, and their total lack of embarrassment, that seems different (and worse) than in the past.
Glenn seems to be trying to focus on the asinine presumptuousness of the modern newsmedia -- with as little reference as possible to particular Left/Right slant.
I spent much of the past year going thru my Dad's papers, and I read plenty of clipped news articles about the Big Issues of the early 60s while doing so. Opinion-makers did condescend to their readership back then -- no doubt about it. However -- they weren't half as stupid as their contemporary counterparts, I swear it. And they had some relict honor within them.
-
mostly about polls
But first, quizzically...
I'm glad the voters of New Hampshire shoved it back into their faces for a change.
For a change? The New Hampshire voters do this one way or another, sometimes just in their on-air comments, every election. What was different this time is that most of the country was rooting for it, and glad when it happened.
About polls:
1) The term exit poll is getting washed, folded, spindled, and mutilated today. It used to refer to a poll that asked the voter how they had voted, plus questions of demographic interest and fraud detector questions. The poll results published in the NYT and elsewhere, from the NEP, were just a regular old opinion poll asked on the occasion of doing an exit poll. As such, there are, or would be, if the other results had been published, two different margins of error, and two totally different meanings. True to 2004 form, NEP/Edison/Mitofsky did not publish the exit poll results, keeping them as proprietary and confidential IP of the participating corporations (who masquerade as "the press" elsewhere).
2) In response to (I think it was Kitt's)rhetorical about accuracy of polls taken every few hours: The poll accuracy is determined entirely by the randomness of the sample and the number of respondents (unless the number of respondents is very close to the total population, which it never is). 4% margins of error indicate that about 1000 respondents were questioned, typical for a "quickie" poll. 2000 is more standard (3% margin of error). That said, if you sample every few hours very quickly, instead of slowly over 3 days (typical for opinion polls), you get rapid fluctuations as opposed to the more adiabatic results. Just remember that someone who can shoot up 18 points in a day can also trough down 18 points in a day.
3) In response partially to criticisms in the source that shooter cited, about who funds the poll: There are two types of funding: a grant, in which the researchers ask for money to do research, and are given it, and then design the poll and methodology and execute it, and a commissioned poll, in which the poll is designed by the polling firm (it's usually a firm in this case, but not always) to fit the desires of the commissioning company (it's usually a company). The polls done by the media are the latter type, although parts of Edison/Mitofsky (the true exit poll part) are done to a standard that is used all over the world as a test of fair elections. By the way, the margin of error on exit polls is frequently about a tenth of what it is in opinion polls. Normally if they diverge from the results, it indicates that there has been an election irregularity, not a problem with polling methods.
4) The election itself is not an opinion poll, it is an election. The press frequently seems to forget this. It is not designed, it is not a sampling of likely voters, it is the actual voters casting votes.
Hope all this helps, I built up questions reading through the letters.
Oh, and by the way, that other election that was supposed to be on January 8th (it was postponed), in Pakistan: the government issued 200,000 arrest warrants yesterday for "unrest", mostly targeting a single political party. As I've expressed before, Pakistan is, right now, a case study in what happens when cynicism and autocratic government gets so bad that the rule of law is gone. Why I think that cynicism by media stars here about our laws and democracy is evil. Even if it is banal.