Bad jokes about the Globe’s new “G-spot” aside, the paper is shrinking in more ways that one. I refer to the continuing dismal quality of its election coverage.
Time was, a national election was a golden opportunity for a first-rate paper to show its stuff. But between Peter Canellos’ tin ear and the lame reporting from the field, reading the Globe on the 2008 election too often makes me cringe.
Case in point today’s front-page article by Scott Hellman and Sasha Issenberg headlined, Obama on defense in Pa. As McCain senses an opening.
In 1200 words, there is not one single citation of actual polling data or, indeed, any other hard information that would justify that McCain actually is moving in on Obama, or that Obama’s support is weakening. Their nut graf: “But for all of the offense that Obama is now playing, he and his campaign are having to mount a forceful defense of a big, vote-rich, traditionally Democratic prize: Pennsylvania.”
The information coming in shows exactly the opposite, that Obama is maintaining a steady, double-digit lead in Pennsylvania. The most recent poll, from Franklin and Marshall with the Philadelphia Daily News shows Obama up 13 points. Terry Madonna, the poll director, said, “”The race shows a lot of stability.” “Obama is very well positioned to win the state, unless McCain has a breakthrough moment.”
So where is the information to back up the Globe story that Obama is scrambling to hold on to his lead? Answer: there is no such information. The piece uses a few quotes from people like PA Gov. Ed Rendell that caution against cockiness, but that’s about it. This is “There needs to be a horse race” journalism at its blatant worst. This article is an embarrassment. But the Boston Globe (“Owned by moguls, written by interns”) these days is simply beyond embarrassment.
I mean just take the papers printed over the last 60 days and count the stories supporting Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin. Check out their editorials, op-ed pieces, letters… and you’ll see “scathing” reports on anything they can find about McCain and gushing remarks about Obama.
<
p>How many moons are there in the world you live in? The Boston Globe is a rag which I would use to wrap dog droppings in. I am counting the days until they shrink small enough to move from the their current building on Morrissey Blvd to the small bridge operator’s shack on the Malibu Beach bridge in Savin Hill.
<
p>You’re right about how horrible the newspaper is, how factless the writing is, but it was an aberration to pick a story even slightly critical about Obama.
You seem to be under the odd impression that being “for” McCain means saying he is gaining in Pennsylvania.
<
p>SmallTownGuy’s criticism is that this article is all narrative and no data.
<
p>Come to think of it, you might like that!
I DO like narrative. Again, this subtle remark is an example of how another poster here at BMG using just narrative would fall below your radar for critique. But I will be ever vigilant watching for your critiques of my writings.
<
p>I feel special in a strange way.
… of how another poster here at BMG …
<
p>This was a commentary on a newspaper article. Narrative has its places and uses. I’m not against dataless narrative always and everywhere. Talk about obtuse!
<
p>It should be completely unsurprising that I would comment on some things and not others.
I’ll create another ID here at BMG. I’ll write a few posts and responses using very obtuse themes and being intensely narrative with very little facts. But my posts will be in support of Obama, against the death penalty, in favor of people marrying animals, support taxation of even laughter (since anyone laughing that much is TOO HAPPY and should share their wealth with poor people), defending Diane Wilkerson, fawning over Keith Olberman… get the point… and I’ll see if you even notice my presence!!! Hell, I’ll even throw in the occasionally foul word. My bet… you won’t see me.
As one who doesn’t really understand liberal arguments that readily, you are making a somewhat empty threat.
<
p>(1) There already was a trollish, right-wing poster who tried to pretend to be a silly liberal. I was on him, JohnD.
<
p>(2) There’s someone who occasionally posts here whom I regard as a dimwitted liberal. I was just as pushy.
<
p>But if you want to feel victimized, well, I guess I can’t stop you.
I’ll continue to be victimized in the usual manner. And let’s face it KBusch, you could sniff me out no matter how much I tried to change my “voice”. My “idea” was just trying to keep you honest. And I’ll keep trying to do that.
… that McCain got faked out by the Obama campaign to go all in in PA:
Right now, polling looks extremely solid for Obama in every blue state (including Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire). In addition, Obama has nearly insurmountable leads in Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, and Iowa. That’s more than enough to win, and we’re not even talking about North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, or Nevada.
<
p>So McCain’s campaign absolutely must grab a big, EV-rich state from the blue column. All such states will be difficult and uphill for him. They almost all require making up a sizable deficit. Pennsylvania really is his best shot. Possibly his only shot.
… but the notion of Rendell asking him to come back to campaign in a solid blue state has an ‘inside baseball’ whiff to it. I think he was played. PA might still be his best shot, but only if you buy some very long assumptions about Hillary Democrats. I suspect that if he believes what he believes about PA it is probably in large part to the ‘sell’ of the fake-out. Plus, this only works if he’s got someone covering his flank in Georgia, Florida, Arizona, and such. I’ll bet this is hard for him because I suspect the list of people willing to hitch up to this wagon is diminishing as well.
it is hard to find a good move. Against good play, all moves lose.
<
p>I think that’s where the McCain campaign finds itself. So I think this one’s hard to decide. I enjoy your suggestion more than my own, though. The idea of Democrats being wily is appealing.
that he’s there in the first place. His electoral math probably includes PA as a must win.
<
p>But yes, poor article.
has a far more realistic view on what’s going on in PA.
<
p>
<
p>Of course Obama shouldn’t take PA for granted. He shouldn’t take anything for granted. But to pretend that McCain is suddenly surging in PA seems to overstate the case pretty severely.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/…
<
p>Is that what a “surge” looks like?
And the Marist poll released today (conducted 10/24 – 10/26)shows, among registered voters in the state, Obama is ahead 52% to 39%.
<
p>Just want to include “likely voters,” including those who are undecided yet leaning? Obama is up 55% to 41% — with just 4% of voters still “undecided.”
<
p>Nationally, Obama has a 10% point lead (or better) in enough states to add up to 259 electoral votes. Throw in Virginia (where Obama currently leads 51% to 42%) and he has 272, enough to win.
<
p>He can still win with a loss, under this scenario, both in all other states where he has a smaller lead (Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada) and in every other “toss-up” state (Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and Georgia).
<
p>Either the polls are very wrong or the race is over.
I am saddened by the the decline in quality and quantity of political reporting. Not just in the Globe, but across the mainstream media. Have budgets been cut that much that we can’t actually send reporters into the field to cover the campaign?
<
p>I don’t they’re in the tank so much as they aren’t doing their job. Little real reporting going on. At least not like it used to be.
<
p>They all seem to be stuck in the same echo chamber, just repeating campaign press releases and blog postings. This is why you get more coverage about faked attacks and $150,000 shopping sprees than real issues.
<
p>There was a time when reporters travelled with a campaign, at least for a while, and gauged the crowd size and enthusiasm, talked to voters and local politicians to get better sense of what was going on and what people thought.
<
p>And, for cripes sake, does the Globe (or any other media outlet) have anyone who knows anything about statistics, polling, or sampling? Anyone who took math after middle school? The lack of real data was bad enough, not being able to understand / explain the data makes it worse.
<
p>Yes, there are some concerns about polling methodology – especially likely voter models. But, nearly every major poll in PA has Obama beyond the margin of error, in some cases way beyond the margin of error. And the “trends”, “surges”, “tightening” are random noise. Different pollsters, different methodologies, different time frames, same result: Obama ahead and staying ahead. Stable race for several weeks now.
<
p>
It seems as if the last decade has seen the gradual vanishing of journalism. We’ve seen herd pursuit of The Narrative even in the face of opposing facts. (My favorite examples: how long the Press regarded Bush as “popular” when he wasn’t contrasted with how often they understate Clinton’s approval ratings.) There’s also the stenographic approach (“Republican say Up is Down. Some Democratic critics disagree.”) where truth is sacrificed to balance.
<
p>Are the economic forces on the news industry such that journalism’s professional standards must yield just as the milkman has yielded to the dairy case?
He “claimed to invent the Internet” – except he didn’t. Ditto the Love Story and Love Canal tales.
<
p>At the same time, McCain was a “straight talker” whose racist and sexist comments reporters deliberately and unanimously failed to report.
<
p>Later, support for the Iraq invasion was supposedly overwhelming, while large protest rallies were almost completely ignored.
<
p>Broadcast media have turned themselves into low-grade entertainment, while newspapers have reduced themselves to shilling for the Establishment.