Patterico's Pontifications

9/30/2004

Debate Blogging

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 7:41 pm



Got to be loyal to my (few) dedicated readers, so I’m blogging at my home base at thoughtsonline

Tomorrow’s Headlines (part deux)

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 1:14 pm



Over at LGF, as well as elsewhere, we’re treated to the Boston Globe’s ‘premature publication’ of tonight’s debate coverage.

I’m only surprised that they are so incompetent that they couldn’t keep the story buried on their server until later tonight. Just wondering: are the techies who work for MSM as liberal as the writers? Could explain things, couldn’t it?

MT is pretty neat

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Charlie (Colorado) @ 12:20 pm



Over at my blog, I’ve been on Blogger since Day One and have had to put up with the Blogger servers being down on a way-too-often basis, their unresponsive customer service, and their lacking many of the cool blogging tools available on other platforms. In fact, I’m posting this here because I haven’t been able to get on to Blogger for the past hour.

Now that I’ve actually gotten to experience using another platform, I’m even more likely to switch. Thanks to Patterico for the demo.

Preview of tomorrow’s

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 11:33 am



headlines of tonight’s debate…

“Defensive Bush Fails to Make Case for Second Term, so Says Many Voters”.
“Bad News From Iraq Seen as Undercutting Bush Credibility”
“Kerry Now Seen as Decisive in Eyes of Many”.
“Foreign Leaders Critical of Bush Policies, Say Another Term Endangers World Peace”
“Bush: Many Questions Still Remain Over Guard Service”
“Bush Attacks Fail to Damage Kerry”
“Spin Artists Furiously Try to Minimize Impact of Bush Gaffes”
“Kerry Articulates Clear Vision Towards Iraq Conflict”
“Pollsters Predict Race to Narrow in Coming Days” and, finally,
“Having Lost Momentum, Bush Scrambles to Get Campaign Back on Track”.

All of the above could appear tomorrow morning, all of the above could ‘technically’ be accurate. ‘Many’ voters do question Bush, ‘many’ voters view Kerry as being decisive and having a clear vision, there are some open questions about Bush’s National Guard Service, Bush is very likely to say something that could use some clarifying, I’m sure that at least the DNC’s pollsters will be claiming the race will tighten, and no matter what happens tonight, some liberal talking head will claim Bush is in trouble.

Which brings me (finally) to the point of this post: the reporters and editors of the MSM have enormous discretion in how they decide to portray events such as tonight’s debate. Which aspect to cover, who to quote in support of their theme and so on. My thesis is that what they will write tonight will not only influenced by their liberal view of the world (Kerry good, Bush bad) but also by what they want to see happening tonight.

Just as a sports fan will invariably look to find something positive to say about their team – even in the middle of a 10 game losing streak, the MSM will be watching tonight looking for something positive to say about their candidate (Kerry, for anyone not paying attention) tomorrow morning.

Given how critical this upcoming debate is to Kerry’s chances of winning the election (I won’t bothering linking all of the stories that describe this as Kerry’s latest last chance), combined with the fact that upwards of 85% of the MSM watching tonight will be rooting desperately for Kerry to do well and for Bush to screw up, what is the likelihood that any of these editors and reporters will be the ones to put the final nail in the Kerry coffin?

That’s right, none.

I’m honored…

Filed under: 2004 Election — Charlie (Colorado) @ 9:25 am



that Patterico thinks my guest-blogging is better than the blog equivalent of a test pattern.

Motivated by the great job Patterico has been doing so capably with the LA Dog Trainer – trying to keep them honest and screaming when they’re not – I recently decided to give the same thing a try with my hometown paper, The Washington Post.

In my series, The Washington Post: Just as Biased, Just Not as Stupid”, I’ve been trying to show how the Post doesn’t resort to the same tactics as CBS has used (and, apparently once again. No, the Post does their part to deliver the election to Kerry the old fashioned way: selective use of quotes, the editors using their ‘impartial discretion’ in deciding which stories are worth coverage and which are not, which stories to put on the front page and which to bury inside. The Post also employs what I call the “No good Bush news goes unanswered”: any story that could, just could be seen to portray Bush in a positive light needs to be accompanied by a qualifier. Supposedly neutral ‘human interest’ stories are sure to include the obligatory dig against Bush in some way, such as in today’s article about a town not only suffering from unease over the ongoing war on terrorism but also from the effects of 670 area workers who lost their jobs when yet another factory shut its doors (ooh, the obligatory shot at the Bush economy).

Now, I know, as does Patterico when he looks at the LA Dog Trainer, that the Post editors and political reporters would jump up and down in righteous indignation that anyone, especially those of us who sit at home in our pajamas (actually, in my case, a pair of shorts and a T-shirt), would dare to criticize their work, dare to suggest that they are biased, dare to suggest that they would consider Bush’s re-election to be among the worst things that could happen to the country, dare to suggest that they are doing their best to keep that from happening. To which I respond: they should thank God that the Post has a decent sports page, a monopoly on classified ads in the metro area, the movie reviews and listings and the comics. Because we’re sure not spending 35 cents a day for your writing. There’s a reason why every week, when my daughter needs part of the paper to line the bird’s cage, I tell her to take the front page.

That’s all for now. Thanks for reading.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1500 secs.