A few days ago, the emotion-filled comments of Hillary Clinton were carried and commented upon by many media outlets. The more serious news outlets showed the clip, and then asked political pundits to ask how this would affect voters. The less serious outlets (and by that, I mean the talk radio people) were less kind -- some of them called it "blubbering" -- but rather than discuss how Clinton was changing her message (except for the experts who opined that the emotion was just an act) they just talked about the emotion.
Some of Hillary's comments really hit home with me -- people (reporters and voters) seem more concerned with the competition aspect of the "race" than with what causes one person to be in "the lead." I sincerely hope that the causes are less related to the polls and the race and more related to the ideas the candidates espouse.
Then, one day later, the pundits were shocked at the results of the primary. And the media characterized it as a "comeback" victory.
What made it a "comeback?" Just a couple weeks before Clinton was a clear (polling) leader in New Hampshire. Then she was a clear second place after the Iowa caucuses. OK, "comeback" makes sense. But seriously, what's the important point? That the polls changed in a way the media and campaigns didn't expect, or figuring out what that means! I would guess that the more interesting and newsworthy points would be related to the latter. OK, polls mean something, but they are not news.
Yesterday I posted that I wanted more information about the positions of the candidates. To be somewhat fair, it's not really the job of the news organizations to campaign for the candidates. As I mentioned before, I did appreciate the CBS "Primary Questions" series, but it's probably my responsibility to get information from the campaign literature. It's just that I trust the journalists to be able to do a fair analysis and explanation of the differences between the candidates' positions, and I wish we could have more of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment