If only Arnold during his endorsement of John McCain would refer to Mitt Romney as "gurly man." That's my short term hope for the campaign. Care to share yours?
I guess my hope is that the media does a better job covering the campaign. For me, this would entail, at a minimum, noting the complexity of the electoral process and resisting the urge to sell an interpretation of an event. For example, New Hampshire was sold as a big "win" for Clinton. Well, she did do, what?, 5% better in terms of the popular vote than Obama. However, Obama actually received more delegates from NH than she did. I saw no reference to this in coverage the night of the election.
To me, this ommission is pretty glaring given that candidates need a majority of the delegates available to secure their party's nomination. So, here we get an interpretation that gets repeated again and again, it's what people hear and believe, and it's wrong. Or, if it's not wrong per se, there's a lot more to it. And it is, by and large, the media's fault.
Now, maybe it's the case that the public would not watch such a broadcast that focused on a delegate count. If so, then media outlets simply give the public what it wants to hear (a story). In this scenerio, then, the public, in which I include myself, is at fault for not wanting good information. . .
1 comment:
I guess my hope is that the media does a better job covering the campaign. For me, this would entail, at a minimum, noting the complexity of the electoral process and resisting the urge to sell an interpretation of an event. For
example, New Hampshire was sold as a big "win" for Clinton. Well, she did do, what?, 5% better in terms of the popular vote than Obama. However, Obama actually received more delegates from NH than she did. I saw no reference to this in coverage the night of the election.
To me, this ommission is pretty glaring given that candidates need a majority of the delegates available to secure their party's nomination. So, here we get an interpretation that gets repeated again and again, it's what people hear and believe, and it's wrong. Or, if it's not wrong per se, there's a lot more to it. And it is, by and large, the media's fault.
Now, maybe it's the case that the public would not watch such a broadcast that focused on a delegate count. If so, then media outlets simply give the public what it wants to hear (a story). In this scenerio, then, the public, in which I include myself, is at fault for not wanting good information. . .
Post a Comment