techPresident - journalism - Comments

metrics

Ari Melber — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:40:46 -0500

Great post, Colin! Many pundits -- especially journalists who are often asked by their employers to opine without taking a stance on any political or moral issues -- use the metrics of horse race strategy. Most voters do not. Only one out of five Iowa caucus goers prioritized that famous trope of electability, for example. But without putatively neutral prognostication, journo-pundits would have even less to say. Booking more opinionated people for honest debates over policy and ideology might mitigate the trend, but that would require covering politics as an important democratic exercise, not a well-funded psuedo sport.

Exactly

shimanepdf — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:21:16 -0500

Exactly right Colin.

The problem, however, is that the viewing public expect 24/7 news and these pundits need to deliver. It is a no-win situation.

Think about having to have "new" news every 4-6 hours you are on the air, plus actually do reporting and talking to the voters.

It is impossible.

--
Cheers,

Shaun Dakin – CEO & Founder
The National Political Do Not Contact Registry
-- A non-partisan, non-profit program by Citizens for Civil Discourse
Register Your Phone Number Now for Free: http://www.StopPoliticalCalls.org/

dimwitted punditry will live on

Freedomfighter — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:39:52 -0500

Colin,
Such punditry is nothing new and is unlikely to die soon. Rush Limbaugh refers to such media and punditry as the drive-by media. Rush, unlike others, said the race was open and had suggested Obama and Huckabee might win Iowa. It did not take a divining rod to figure it out but a review of history and the ability to listen to the public.

Of course, people beat up on Rush, but that is merely because he has a better grasp of the facts than the vast majority.

Deflating the hype

Erik Ose — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:32:29 -0400

Colin, right on. The NYT piece was sloppy, and you called it out nicely by providing some of the context Adam Nagourney's reporting lacked. Re the previous comment on this post, an op-ed I wrote for The Hill yesterday (John Edwards Needs a Netroots Reboot) similarly deflates the hype that Edwards is still the e-candidate to beat, using hard numbers to back up the story. A longer version, also discussing what Obama's doing right with his online strategy, is posted at The Latest Outrage.

What do numbers mean?

cfinnie — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:23:39 -0400

I'm not convinced that who you hire and how much you spend equates to a better web presence. The Clinton campaign has managed to spend a lot for the most content-free site in the race. Any positions on issues you do manage to dig out are usually in either long, boring speech transcripts or in videos that may or may not pertain to the information you want. Most are pretty fluffy rather than substantive.

I was also amused that you claim Edwards is getting less "buzz" online based on one vague story that states Clinton and Obama are getting more, but gives no figures. In short, a statement worthy of the NYT.

I'm not backing Edwards, and am as tired as anybody of the celebrity status accorded Joe Trippi. When Edwards hired him, I posted on a DFA list that it was the kiss of death for the campaign. I haven't changed that opinion.

I know it's popular to credit Trippi with Dean's rise. But those of us who supported Dean know that all Joe did was to help us spread the word about a better candidate than any in the field now. Here I'll disagree with McLuhan. The message is the message, and Dean had one. Trippi did his part to help spread it. But Dean was right. Only we really had the power to create the grass/netroots swell that we did. And that was only because we really believed in Dean. Not because of the great online tools.

I did think the Soprano-spoof video was worth the money Clinton undoubtedly spent on it. She's also getting a lot of MSM coverage, which doesn't hurt the attention she gets online. And Obama is getting the benefit of the enthusiasm some bright, young, creative folks have for him--as his paid efforts online, while better than Clinton's, do not match the charisma of the candidate. I give his team points for a good tagline and logo--and at least some issues text.

I'd say that these factors have more to do with how much online buzz they're getting--whatever those numbers may actually be--not how much money they have put in to it.