The Presidential debate - Which way will the kids be chasing the ball?
This post from Legal Fiction describes a analogy Jon Stewart used describing the media. Basically, Stewart compared the media to a 6-and-under soccer game. The ball goes one way, and every single kid goes chasing after it, forming a little meaningless heard. In fact, this is such a good analogy, I think the Washington press corps should have to recreate it once a year on the Mall, with everything, Gatorade, Orange slices and the sweatsuits underneathe the uniforms. Jack Germond should be brought out of retirement just to see what he looks like. David Broder looks like that slightly dorky full back we all knew.
That fun aside. I think what's critical about these debates is which way the ball goes afterwards, and if the media yet again goes 6-year-old on us. I remember the 2000 debates, I watched them alone in my apartment during law school at Chapel Hill(in what would become a series of incredible diversions from studying during my One-L year). I thought Gore killed Bush, who no more than he does now failed to make much of any sense. But later, talking to classmates, and not the hard-core Republicans mind you, I realized that many people had a different take, wildly varying takes in fact. The same thing has happened after political speeches I've watched. It's rare that I hear the same response from a person twice about some political event they've watched, even among my fellow traveler progressives.
The media however, are a different story. In 2000, they decided Bush won, and hammered away at that belief, ultimately adopting a few choice clips to demonstrate their point. The same has happened this year, perhaps worse than any other.
The gross example was the post-convention bounce story for Bush. Despite conflicting poll numbers, and a wildly different methodology in the Gallup poll showing Bush ahead by double digits, the press flew with the story that Kerry was in deep, deep trouble. This despite the fact, that historically, it didn't appear that Bush's bounce was any greater than normal. It's true Bush is ahead, by a couple a points or two, and with such narrow leads in a host of battleground states as to make this election look alot like 2000. However, the media decided to create a story based on the most "interesting" data, the outlier polls, and make that the ONLY story they have covered. (A more appropriate story, which was picked up by the Washington Post following the convention, was the $3 trillion in spending and tax cuts Bush proposed in his convention speech, which in fact he has no intention on spending, at least according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget's FY 2006 numbers.)
So the question is, will the media behave like sentient adults, or less-cute, less-excusable addled children?
That fun aside. I think what's critical about these debates is which way the ball goes afterwards, and if the media yet again goes 6-year-old on us. I remember the 2000 debates, I watched them alone in my apartment during law school at Chapel Hill(in what would become a series of incredible diversions from studying during my One-L year). I thought Gore killed Bush, who no more than he does now failed to make much of any sense. But later, talking to classmates, and not the hard-core Republicans mind you, I realized that many people had a different take, wildly varying takes in fact. The same thing has happened after political speeches I've watched. It's rare that I hear the same response from a person twice about some political event they've watched, even among my fellow traveler progressives.
The media however, are a different story. In 2000, they decided Bush won, and hammered away at that belief, ultimately adopting a few choice clips to demonstrate their point. The same has happened this year, perhaps worse than any other.
The gross example was the post-convention bounce story for Bush. Despite conflicting poll numbers, and a wildly different methodology in the Gallup poll showing Bush ahead by double digits, the press flew with the story that Kerry was in deep, deep trouble. This despite the fact, that historically, it didn't appear that Bush's bounce was any greater than normal. It's true Bush is ahead, by a couple a points or two, and with such narrow leads in a host of battleground states as to make this election look alot like 2000. However, the media decided to create a story based on the most "interesting" data, the outlier polls, and make that the ONLY story they have covered. (A more appropriate story, which was picked up by the Washington Post following the convention, was the $3 trillion in spending and tax cuts Bush proposed in his convention speech, which in fact he has no intention on spending, at least according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget's FY 2006 numbers.)
So the question is, will the media behave like sentient adults, or less-cute, less-excusable addled children?
posted by SebbyMan at 10:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home