Letters to the Editor
-
I'm betting Harry Truman's
having a huge laugh today somewhere in the universe...
-
I give up
Jesus,Mary &Joseph! What is wrong with you? I will keep up my subscription to Salon because I love Glenn & Joan. But you? Blame Hillary for your rantings of her impending doom? You are hopeless.
-
SEXIST PIGS
say it isn't so...tim, you're one of those clueless sexist pigs.
-
But the real point
I agree that there is no reason to scold any journalists who believed the polls, but there is a bigger point that doesn't recieve enough attention in my opinion.
Why is there so much analysis on how Hilary turned those numbers around so fast when there is NO reason to think that the numbers ever turned all that much? The fact that we get psychologically attached to the numbers is not surprising, but any kind of objective role by the media should challenge any analysis that starts from the presumption that Hilary's tears, her husbands rants, Barak's tone, etc., had anything to do with the final results. Is there any rubric of objectivity that would give such speculation ground to stand on.
I don't think the media needs to be scolded, but I do think that it might do us all well to notice that most media folks are making the assumption that Clinton's surprising victory was based in an actual Comeback. By promoting the idea that Hilary really cameback in New Hampshire the media totally ignores the role it may have innocently played in creating the impression in the first place.
Please notice that I'm not attacking. I just am struck by how the sense of Hilary's Great Comeback isn't being questioned by the folks who are suppose to be objective on these topics. I'd apply the same logic to Barak when he is the recipient of such twisted logic.
-
This article would be relevant if
everyone in the Clinton campaign were broadcasting 24/7 about how her political life was over and just what tone Obama should strike in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention.
-
And another thing...
Someone please tell me how Iowa and New Hampshire were the end-all, be-all. Only 22 delegates on the line last night? And why isn't anyone writing that Edwards candidacy is dead. Two losses - that's what I see.
This has been a Hillary pile on from the beginning. MSM does it, Salon does it. That's why the glee Monday and the shock and awe Tuesday.
-
The journalists were wrong because...
they forgot that their job is to report the actual news. Not predict the news and certainly not be the news.
-
And sometimes, people are arrogant blowhards
They didn't just "predict an outcome"--they were practially slobbering over it, and Matthews was hardly alone. Andrea Mitchell went on the air nine hours before the polls closed to explain in great detail why Clinton had already lost, then came on two hours after they'd closed to explain exactly how Clinton had won, GIVING THE SAME REASONS BOTH TIMES. Keith Olbermann, normally disciplined in his argumentation even when he's going up in blue smoke, was plainly ready to roast Clinton in exactly the same tone of moral outrage he'd used so effectively--and so deservedly--on George Bush over the last few years. By 11:00, everyone except Tom Brokaw had executed the Full Cable Pivot and were hyperventilating about the "greatest triumph in American political history." It's a bad night for journalism when Pat Buchanan sounds cogent and rational by comparison. They should all have to spend the next five years covering harness racing.
-
Polling, stats and whining
Why do we blame the media?
Because A) the gleefullness in which the media was taking at Clinton's expensive was excessive and B) this is the NEWS -- not PREDICTIONS.
So, yes, the polls were wrong. This is very likely due to poor polling methods and bad statistical methods. However, rather than rally about how "even Hillary's camp was predicting bad news" why not discuss polling methodology, standard deviations, sample sizes, etc, etc, etc.
Or, go back and look at just how flawed polling can be.
But quit pointing fingers at the candidates for this screw-up. That just makes you look whiney.
-
there's wrong, then there's wrong
yes, the clinton team might have thought they were going to lose new hampshire, but you didn't hear them talking like that would end her whole campaign. the media on the other hand were talking like her political life was dead and she had no hope of ever winning after the iowa caucus and the new hampshire polls. it's really a shame that 2 states have such pull over the media's perception of the election and that the media seems to have such pull over the general population. i support obama, but am happy to see clinton win new hampshire. all in all i think everyone wins with a close race between the two (i'd even be happy if edwards was strong enough to stay in race 'til the end too). although there's been some negativity in the race, overall (i'm definitely not saying completely) i think all the dems have done remarkably well to keep it civil and on the issues.
-
blah blah blah
Is there anything going on in politics besides primaries? Like, say, Bush in Israel perhaps? Or a bunch of other stuff I don't know about because you guys won't talk about anything besides the campaign. Isn't that what the Roadies blog is for?
-
Oh brother.
Mr. Greive
Your desperate efforts to undo Hillary's victory in New Hampshire are despicable and cowardly. You make a bunch of idle assumptions about the way she won the campaign, based on nothing more than the hatred you feel for her, on top of which, you actually manage to gently scold such a loathsome creature like Chris Matthews for his daily attacks on Sen. Clinton.
Nearly everyon knows of the hatred felt against the Clintons, all over this country. But, obviously, there is a respect, love and admiration for the Clinton name, felt by a majority of Americans. The Clintons come out on the positive side of the ledger, in our history as a nation. This is what embitters you, Mr. Greive. The Clintons have prevailed over your efforts to degrade them.
jp
-
Mr. Grieve, with all due respect...
*Just how many journalists - as opposed to opportunistic, corporate-owned whores - have been implicated in the NH goat screw? *The NH fuck up isn't the problem - it is the symptom. The problem is that the MSM has almost no serious journalists left. They have media personalities who make a lot of money pontificating about everything when they know absolutely nothing. *There is not accountability in our infotainmedia. Sometimes I wish a dialogue box would appear on the screen that read something like:
WARNING! WARNING! This talking head hasn't been right about anything since the '64 World Series. Proceed at your own risk.