>>The study found that three out of four evaluations of Democratic candidates' chances of winning — such as sound bites — were positive, compared with one out of eight for Republicans.<<
Sully -
Yes, I've often complained that the media tend to focus on the "horse race" as opposed to looking at how the candidates differ on substantive issues. This is a trend that has increased in recent elections, I think.
Since things do seem to be breaking for the Democrats, as far as the closer races go, it's no wonder that more of the stories are about them winning. It must be terribly painful for you to watch that.
I'm sure it's like how I felt in the time between 9/11/2001 and the past year, maybe, when media outlets everywhere seemed to be content to be spoonfed the news by the Bush Administration. Take, for example, Judith Miller's series of stories about WMDs, in the months leading up to our invasion of Iraq. They were so unquestioning of the Administration's every statement that later, when no WMDs were found, the Times had to issue an apology for the sheer credulousness of the whole series of stories.
Questions asked of the President in his rare press conferences always seemed to be softballs throughout this period. I'm speaking of my own impressions, of course.
I'm pleased that the reporters who cover the White House, including some of those from right-leaning publications, have begun to step up to the plate and ask a few tough questions now and then. That's their job, after all. They're not supposed to just take notes and write whatever Tony Snow tells them to write.
- Allen |
