Five Lessons I Hope the News Media Learns From New Hampshire

Looks like Howard Kurtz hasn't yet learned his lesson, inviting me to participate on his CNN show Reliable Sources at 10 a.m. Sunday. I'm looking forward to talking about the media coverage of this week's primaries in New Hampshire, which found a lot of gasbags wiping egg off their face when Hillary Clinton produced a surprise victory on the Democratic side.

I can give a preview here of what I'll likely discuss, in a brief summary:

Media Keeps Forgetting Past Lessons -- If the 2000 election taught us anything, it's that we shouldn't believe polls. And for a while, TV pundits in particular avoided making predictions based on opinion polls, which in the end can't really tell you what decision people will make in the privacy of a voting booth. But Iowa's caucus results, which were so close to the big poll results, suckered everyone into believing that they could predict New Hampshire as well. Now we know -- people are closely divided over a field of pretty good candidates, and picking the eventual winner will be difficult for everyone.

Why Is Media Stuck on Proving It's Own Points? -- Former Clinton advisor Paul Begala presents an engaging blog entry detailing how he tried to tell Fox News reporter Major Garrett he was not joining Hillary Clinton's campaign. Despite three emailed denials, Garrett only said he would take the information "under advisement." I've seen the same reporting regarding New York mayor Michael Bloomberg's possible presidential ambitions. He keeps saying he's not running, and the media keeps saying he's preparing to run. Again, can we wait until something actually happens before we report it?

Never Count Out the Clintons -- If you ask me, Hillary Clinton's biggest strength as a candidate is that people -- including the media -- constantly underestimate her. Now that she's managed a victory which gives a big finger to every pundit who tried writing her political obituary -- the same way her husband did 16 years ago -- maybe folks will ease up a little and let her run her campaign.

Stop Trying to Pronounce Winners -- As NBC anchor emeritus Tom Brokaw so astutely pointed out Tuesday, it's time for the press to stop trying to predict who will win this contest and stick with the facts. Unfortunately, that is exactly how cable TV in particular fills its 24-hour election coverage. Can Chris Matthews get through an evening of election coverage without losing some off the wall prediction? Which leads to my next point....

Media Now Must Serve Public, Not Itself -- For the media, picking winners is about being first among competitors, looking important to the political world and earning bragging rights -- none of which helps the public. New Hampshire's vote made it clear; the public needs information which will help it choose between a crowded field of good candidates. Serious vetting of candidate claims. You know, journalism. What it doesn't need: Bad predictions about how they are going to vote.

Keep up with my other media musings by checking my own blog here.

Comments

[EdwardEdwards]

If the corporate owned media's only interest was to break a story, this would be an excellent article. But since the corporate owned media actually favors candidates, it's naive to forget their desire to make stories.

[narcolepticjenn]

In NH I loved it when the talking heads would make some comment about how we're traditionally such independent, relatively unpredictable voters. And then they scrambled not to look stupid when the results came in and their predictions didn't pan out. It's a wide-open race and any major candidate winning the first primary in the country should not have been considered a shocking upset.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

It's too bad you won't be visiting with Chris Matthews this Sunday instead. Then you could ask him to explain this:

On his show Wed evening he said he was given exit poll results tues evening showing Obama leadin the race. His entire show Wed evening was spent trying to prove that racism was the cause for the exit polls being wrong about the election results.

For some reason though, he never reported that exit poll data he says he was given during his election coverage on Tues evening.

But, during that same election coverage on the same show Tuesday evening, Norah O'Donnel was using the same exit poll data to explain how and in what demographic groups Clinton won the election.

This seemd a little contradictory to me. Could anyone get Chris Matthews to explain this?

[thgy]

What the media has been doing to our political life is a breach of trust. And what they did in the space of time between the Iowa caucus and the NH primary was traitorous. They made a concerted effort to effect the outcome of our national election. They thought they had Hillary on the ground and they all stood around with their sharpened sticks poking and trying to get the kill.
They are irresponsible, think of Russert giving Dick Cheney and Rice an unchallenged megaphone to catapult their lies and now a sovereign anton lies in ruins and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis men women and Children are dead, wounded or displaced, starving with no future - but that's ok they tell themselves, let's get Hillary.
Rather than mention Obama and defeat in the same sentence Matthews said something like: Hillary defeated that guy we are looking at right now (as he showed a clip of Obama moving through a crowd). And when he was telling about a group that had decided to support Hillary he said something like: they decided to support Hillary after Bill went over there and talked to the two female directors. They may have thought they were just having a good time with their sharpened sticks or they would like us to believe that, but it was malicious mischief at the least and a breach of their fiduciary relationship. It should be investigated, maybe by the United Nations.

[Ides]

"If the 2000 election taught us anything, it's that we shouldn't believe polls. And for a while, TV pundits in particular avoided making predictions based on opinion polls."

Oh, you did not just go there....

[patb]

What used to be a daily afternoon watch,(Hardball) with Chris Matthews is no more. I will not watch him anymore as he is the only one to get to talk even when he asks a question of his guest. He drowns them out so you can't hear what they have to say. Two talking at the same time you hear nothing. He tries to prove he is right even when he is wrong. A big bully.

[research]

How about the voters? They are so dazzled by the MSM SHOW, they won't vote for who they want:

"the 8 percent of New Hampshire Democrats who believe Dennis Kucinich is the most trustworthy candidate were more likely to vote for Obama (33 percent) than Kucinich himself (19 percent)."

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=fun_with_exit_polls

[Cubancoffee]

Eric,

Good points all. I'm sure they will elicit much self-critical clucking from journalists, because they LOVE to analyze and criticize themselves. Then they'll go right back to what they were doing before because, by golly, they've got airtime to fill and exploring candidates' positions and records and such is so, you know, BORING.

The media has finally succeeded in making itself THE center of the story. Election politics is now about whether the candidate meets expectations, formulated by the media, not what he/she has to offer voters. How twisted.

[TwoCentsWorth]

Great post Duggans:

The "media" is selective in what it chooses to focus on -- i.e., long on trivia and short on substance.

A good example of media's selection of trivia is their repeated reporting on Edwards getting a $400.00 hair cut, often to the tune of "I'm so Pretty."

What they failed to mention was the fact that an important pledge in Edward's campaign is his promise to support/fight for "poor" people.

If Edwards really supported or had any interest in people who need help he would have spent $50.00 for a hair cut and given $350.00 to a Homeless shelter or to the Salvation Army, a Food Shelf for out of work families, etc. to actually help the poor have a meal to eat.

Note to the media: Can you spell "Hypocrisy"? The point is, don't equate words and actions.

[Semaj51]

ALL forms of media are guilty of their desire to be the FIRST, or to sell more papers/ads. Even Huffingtonpost was pounding the drums for days before NH primary that Hillary was down and out. Can we get through an election where there are no puntives of wisdon calling the winner before only a few percentage of the votes are counted?

[AnninCA]

Good points, but the media has become the ultimate hypocrites, since all that matters is their ratings.

Hence, the cynicism.