On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Jim Ellwanger <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Kevin M. wrote: > > > Fifteen minutes after the last poll closed, Obama was declared the > winner. Which means -- connecting the dots -- the media withheld > information it had, lied about information it didn't have, and refused to > accept information despite verification. > > So you're saying the networks should have, for example, announced that > Obama would win California the second they went on the air at 7:00 Eastern? > > If a journalist knows something and elects to not report it, I have a serious problem with that. Barring national security or some other compromising situation, a journalist reports what he/she knows. I know I'm down on this election process and the media's coverage of it, but setting aside my own political view, we have a serious problem when the outcome of 42 states are known days if not weeks in advance, but only one statistician (who doesn't do much more than basic math but gets lauded for it, which is in itself a sad testimony of where we stand) mentioned it in a blog which then gets buried amongst other speculative polling data (yes, tying Silver's thread to this one). The only reason not to report on election results as they are known is because someone thinks it is important to get the highest voter turnout possible, but nobody has ever cogently explained why. If 98% of Californians vote, we still get the same electoral votes if 25% of Californians vote. Meaning before we've even gone to the polls, our votes are meaningless, so why not report what is known when it is known? I've been rewatching the "House of Cards" trilogy the last few days, and sadly what has occurred throughout the campaign and subsequent election makes that series seem like a children's cartoon. Media corruption and distortion, a shameful refusal to press politicians on hurtful (and in some cases hateful) lies, backscratching and backstabbing in equal measure, and a general assumption by politicians and the press that the American people do not deserve candor, respect, or the truth. Mitt Romney is perhaps the most openly two-faced candidate in my lifetime -- he has reversed his position on nearly every issue, and the ones he didn't reverse were due to him being so vague and cryptic nobody knew where he stood in the first place. Barack Obama has condoned torture, has ordered the assassination of Americans, has openly supported legislation which permits the government spying on citizens, and has wrongfully detained countless people without due process of law -- the torture and wrongful detention alone have endangered the lives of Americans at home and abroad, as it rewrites foreign policy and makes us a target. Nothing I just wrote is a shock, but everyone in power spent the last several years ignoring it during the campaign. Instead we focus on Clint Eastwood talking to a chair or Mitt Romney's binders full of women. We try to get candidates to provide specifics to their respective tax plans, when everybody knows the opposition party won't pass their tax plans anyway. Everybody has been making jokes about how FoxNews didn't know how to cover an Obama victory. Does anybody think MSNBC could have covered a Romney victory any better? They might have made different types of gaffes, but they'd have been just as flummoxed and emotional. Donald Trump and Victoria Jackson's Twitter feeds have been amusing, but Bill Maher's would have been equally bombastic had Romney won. Karl Rove was upset FoxNews didn't wait longer to declare a winner; I'm upset they took as long as they did. But Rove got 45 minutes of national airtime to rant and rave. I get this message board. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
