I would like to whup the national media upside the head

Okay, the national news is on, and I would like to strangle all the pundits out there. Why the hell is Hillary's victory in NH touted as this tremendous RETURN FROM THE DEAD???? THE MOST AMAZING COMEBACK EVER????* Iowa was the first step in our electoral process. The. first. step. There's a reason there are primaries across the country - so everyone can weigh in. So why is it that everyone acts like Iowa had set the Obama victory/Clinton defeat in stone? Sure, in Iowa Obama won, Clinton didn't, that's a big deal. Sure, the win in Iowa influences what happens in subsequent primaries/caucuses. But I don't think it's a big enough deal for everyone to be going on and on now about how SHOCKING and AMAZING the Clinton victory in NH was. Iowa and New Hampshire are pretty damned different. And it's not like any of these victories have been resounding - people are winning by 2-3 percentage points. I feel like these political analysts might as well be reading tea leaves.

(And yes, I know that in practice the early primaries/caucuses disproportionately influence the ultimate choice of candidate. But please. Jump the gun much? Wasn't it at this point last time round that everyone thought Dean was going to be the Democratic candidate? I just feel like all these pundits need to sit down and wait a little before they start proclaiming what's DEFINITELY going to happen. Oh, but wait, that wouldn't make a very exciting news report.)

And people wonder why I study things that happened five hundred years ago... because they're much less infuriating than the present, that's why.

*That's a rhetorical question, by the way, which really means, I know why, but I wish to hell they wouldn't do it. Doesn't matter that it's Hillary Clinton - if she and Obama had reversed places, I'd still feel the same way.

Comments

[Dance]

I just refuse to watch the news anymore. Period. I was never a very good citizen anymore, but the media has pushed me over the edge.

[Christine]

We are living in an age when personalized taste is everywhere from IPODS to credit card designs. Why the hell anyone believes one state decides it for everyone, in a country as diverse as American, is beyond me.

[hypatia cade]

So I think it's an underdog effect. I think in each case the person who is perceived as the underdog is getting the bump in the turnout. And that it will flip in the next state. I don't know how that helps us to decide. And for the states and percentages we're talking about, it's less than 5000 voters total making the differences.

(And to be honest I'm a bit concerned about our nominating process of states continue to split fairly evenly along these lines.... Right now, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton are within 5 delegates of each other. What happens on Feb 5th if all the primaries go different directions?)

[Academic vixen]

It's because news is a business not a service (not the way it always was) The news folks are going to couch the information the way that will get the most ratings/customers. Truth is a more minor issue.

[What Now?]

Exactly! I was bitching to D. this evening about a news analyst on NPR this morning who acknowledged that Obama might possibly still be able to win despite his stunning defeat yesterday and that he probably wouldn't drop out of the race yet. And I thought, "Stunning defeat? Weren't they like 3 percent apart? So now he's won one primary and come in a really decent second place in the other, and this is causing people to wonder if he's dropping out?" Yeesh.

[unbalanced reaction]

"And people wonder why I study things that happened five hundred years ago... because they're much less infuriating than the present, that's why." Hehe, love it! ;)

[Belle]

Me too: "And people wonder why I study things that happened five hundred years ago... because they're much less infuriating than the present, that's why."

And I switch continents and languages too, just to get away from this place.

[Dr. Moonbeam]

I study stuff from 500 years ago because it's not only less infuriating, we actually have some flipping perspective on it. Which, by their very nature, cannot be the case for contemporary events. *is equally annoyed*

Can I say that if it's within living memory, I'm not entirely convinced it's history? *evil grin*

[Chuck]

Keep in mind this is the same national media that told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and spent about a year talking about OJ and Monica.

But the anti-Hill BS has been driving me insane (and in fact, driving me towards voting for her in my irrelevant primary). Don't call it a comeback in the first freaking inning.

[Susan]

The other good part of studying things that happened 500 years ago is that you can take questions that infuriate you now, and look at them in a context where no ones assumptions can short circuit thinking!

[anon]

Let's not forget that the news media and many corporations are skewed in male dominance. One person I have lost alot of respect for is Anderson Cooper. With his global experience I can't believe how negative and annoyed about Hillary's win in NH he appears to be. Alot of them are annoyed at the poll issue, but for goodness sakes, CNN has turned into Fox news all of a sudden when it deals with Hillary.

[Mommyprof]

I find myself wanting to strangle pundits regularly. I think it is too many people trying to fill airtime when, in fact, they have nothing to talk about.

[Phi]

Tom Tomorrow obviously had the same idea. Great minds think alike :-).