Right now, the nation's media is faced with a key challenge: explaining the rise of Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama in their respective party's primaries. But rather than study the polling data, most journalists will focus on what they do best -- making up stories after the fact based on campaign events to "explain" something that already happened out in the electorate. (See also the "Dean scream," most accounts of presidential debates making any difference, etc.)
The worst example I've seen thus far comes from the NYT television columnist Alessandra Stanley, who was tasked with writing a story about this year's primary debates, which didn't really have many so-called "moments" and weren't watched by many voters. So she came up with this bizarre claim about Mike Huckabee's rise in the polls:
Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, rose from the second tier, in part because of a few deft moments during the Republicans’ CNN/YouTube debate in late November. (When asked by a voter whether Jesus would have supported the death penalty, Mr. Huckabee replied, “Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office.”)
Does anyone think that Huckabee "rose from the second tier" because of his "deft moments" during that debate?
Meanwhile, Obama's surge in the polls has led to the inevitable stories portraying his campaigning in a positive light:
The campaign of Mr. Obama, which slogged uncertainly through a period in the late summer and fall, alarming contributors who feared that he might have missed his moment, is now brimming with confidence as he delivers a closing argument to Iowa voters. His speeches are noticeably crisper, his poise is more consistent and many supporters say they no longer must rely upon a leap of faith to envision him winning the nomination.
The process stories about Hillary Clinton's campaign being in disarray are of course starting to show up as well. It's all too predictable.
Comments