Clipping blog |
Who’s The Likely Nominee in 2016? No One, that’s Who. Now Stop. Posted: 09 Dec 2012 07:26 PM PST
These polls, which are worthy only of our ridicule, exist for two reasons: 1) A bunch of consultants have tossed considerable coin to the pollsters to conduct them, and 2) because media knuckleheads eat them up like a bunch of kids on Free Jellybean Day at the candy store. I can understand the first reason. Consultants have candidates to prop up and foundations to build for an election four years’ hence. They also have millions of dollars to throw around like they’re trying to set a record for most boobs flashed during Mardi Gras. They’re not spending their own money, so why not toss a few grand at pollsters desperate to make up for the debacles of the last election? That second reason, though? I don’t quite get that. Sure, journalists have to cover something, but aren’t there other stories they into which they could dig? The more than 300 people killed by President Obama’s Fast and Furious guns are still dead. Our Ambassador to the United Nation still lied through her teeth about who killed our countrymen in Benghazi. The debt is headed toward $20 trillion dollars faster than a BB shot from an orbital rail gun. There are other things to talk about. But reporters love this sort of stuff. It makes them feel smart, like they’re actual thought leaders instead of easily-replaced thought repeaters. They love it more when none of us hold them accountable for their empty journalism. Here is a story from December 5, 2008 featured on CNN’s website.
So, how did Big Huck work out in 2012? How far did the Palin avalanche roll? More importantly, what price did CNN pay for commissioning this poll and running this story? Here is another article, from the WaPo blog The Fix, dated November 21, 2008. You’re going to love the headline.
This “I gazed deeply into my crystal ball of awesomeness and this is what I saw” piece chose ten Republicans who “will emerge to rebuild the Republican party following its decimation at the ballot box in 2006 and 2008″? First, though, a caveat.
Fair enough. I consider “some”, by the way, as four or five. How many on the list ended up as major players in the Republican nomination? Let’s see, shall we? Here’s the list.
Two. Chris Cilizza, who is accorded quite a bit of authority as an astute political observer got two out of ten, and I am being charitable considering that Jon Huntsman dropped out of the race almost 11 months before the election. Twelve people actually ran for the nomination and Cilizza accurately picked two of them. Why is he an expert again? How does he have credibility as a political commentator, especially of the Republican Party? He would have been much better off had he written this:
I would respect a column like that. I would consider the journalist who wrote that honest and worth my continued readership. Cilizza didn’t do that, though. Neither did CNN. And that, among many other reasons, is why I pay attention to neither one when election time rolls around. And I won’t pay attention to any media outlet that handicaps the 2016 race today. Neither should you. |
You are subscribed to email updates from The Sundries Shack To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 |
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar