Thursday, January 10, 2008
Media fairness
God bless http://www.drudgereport.com/ for opening my eyes to how mainstream media cover up or downplay stories embarrassing to politicians they support. If I had to rely just on CNN or MS-NBC, I would never know the shenanigans cut-and-pasted by Matt Drudge, often from the foreign press that has no ax to grind. My friends tend exclusively to the big three networks and usual newspaper axis (NYT, WAPO, AP) and act surprised when I reveal some scandal brewing about one of their beloved public figures. "Where did you read that?" they ask and after I mention "drudgereport," they sign, "Oh, that's not a real source!"
I beg to differ. It's true that his own unsourced stories seem suspicious, but when he posts valid items from the foreign press or non-mainstream journalist sources, it's hard to ignore. If it's true, who cares who reported it first? (Monica Lewinsky might...)
Apparently no major news organization ran Hillary's meltdown at a recent debate in its entirety. I had to watch it on youtube.com, thanks again to a tip-off from Matt Drudge. Why are top journalists protecting us from her angry performances? She has as much right to lose her cool as a man, but why do we not get to see it replayed on the networks? We certainly got to see her get emotional in a sympathetic way. But not when it makes her look unfriendly.
Addendum, two days later: On the other hand, Matt has much to learn about statistics. He reported a CNN poll on January 12th that showed a 50/48 split between Clinton and McCain and a 49/48 split between Obama and McCain, but the headline reads "either Clinton or Obama would beat any Republican" -- which is not true if you factor in the +/-3.5% margin of error. No one knows how the vote will go, or even if McCain will be nominated, but the margin of sampling error makes the poll outcome into a statistical tie!
I beg to differ. It's true that his own unsourced stories seem suspicious, but when he posts valid items from the foreign press or non-mainstream journalist sources, it's hard to ignore. If it's true, who cares who reported it first? (Monica Lewinsky might...)
Apparently no major news organization ran Hillary's meltdown at a recent debate in its entirety. I had to watch it on youtube.com, thanks again to a tip-off from Matt Drudge. Why are top journalists protecting us from her angry performances? She has as much right to lose her cool as a man, but why do we not get to see it replayed on the networks? We certainly got to see her get emotional in a sympathetic way. But not when it makes her look unfriendly.
Addendum, two days later: On the other hand, Matt has much to learn about statistics. He reported a CNN poll on January 12th that showed a 50/48 split between Clinton and McCain and a 49/48 split between Obama and McCain, but the headline reads "either Clinton or Obama would beat any Republican" -- which is not true if you factor in the +/-3.5% margin of error. No one knows how the vote will go, or even if McCain will be nominated, but the margin of sampling error makes the poll outcome into a statistical tie!
