Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Media Randomly Deciding Major Campaign Events (and when they should take place)

Suddenly, iconic media symbols are siding with him. This one's done, they say. Again, it is not that this should not be happening--TIME should do its cool, historically meaningful covers. That's not the problem. The problem is how insanely arbitrary it is for them to give Obama a "winner" cover NOW and not at any other time since Wyoming and Mississippi. The delegate count for those two periods (before, after) is nearly IDENTICAL, and this here's a DELEGATE fight, folks.

Anyway, that's the last I will groan about THAT.

This is an open thread.


Matt said...

I've been on hillary facebook groups alot, and they always seem to be talking about the media, yada yada. I've found that ever since I decided to stop giving a shit about television news, my information flow and understanding of events has improved greatly. you can pick up bias better when it's written, and you have a chance to think about what you read. I think that the race should be over, but hillary can thrash about some more if she thinks it will do her good.

The sad part is, unlike the left which has built up a great system of media coverage, news, and anaysis, supporters of hillary (to my knowledge, because they refuse to ever give me anything but their own personal rhetoric) have nothing but MSM to go on, which has probably created so much of their rage. When your whole strategy rests on one person, and not on a movement, you're probably going to get screwed in some manner.

Matt said...

For instance, from links in this blog and articles in The Nation, TPM, TNR, and elsewhere, I have assimilated vast amounts of info about barack and hillary.
People who support hillary probably don't even know who Marc Rich or any of the other shady clinton donors are. And they refuse to even read such information when I pass it their way.