First off, I'd just like to point out that Chris Matthews is the most annoying political analyst on television.
Now that that's out of the way, did anyone watch the New Hampshire primary coverage on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News? If Chandler Bing was covering the primary, he'd say "could the networks be more wrong?" (If Chandler Bing really existed and commented on political coverage).
If was actually quite laughable. They didn't get anything right. Ever since Iowa they were declaring that Obama had the momentum and Clinton might as well pack her bags, and when the 8pm closing of the polls showed a very tight race between Obama and Clinton (and Clinton actually ahead), they seemed a little irritated and confused. Cocky "expertise" turned into "we have fascinating development here folks!" and "The polls were wrong!" This can't be right! We have pundits and exit polls and shiny buttons! This doesn't compute!
You'd like to think that after this, the networks would slap themselves on the forehead and not do the same thing next time. But they probably will. They have too much time to fill! That's the real problem here, they have to fill up the non-stop coverage with overanalysis and predictions and charts. They have to have some reason to justify all of the giant NASA-like screens. It was quite fun to see them have to change their wording and change their analysis late last night when the results were made final.
At least Tom Brokaw was on the right track when he said that maybe the network should let the voters decide the election and then report on that.















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
2-07-2008 @ 12:12AM
Preston said...
This happened back in 2004 with the presidential election. They predict or project the winner WHEN THE VOTES IN THAT RESPECTIVE STATE HAVEN'T BEEN COMPLETED YET! And only 50 to 80 percent of that state's voted have been counted. They get too overzealous and overexcited when they have boring stretches of time on their marathon show.
I go--How do these anchormen go through this pattern day after day in those network TV studios reporting the news live just as the cameras roll? It's like a nonstop round the clock pattern when most of us take a more slower pace.
Chris Matthews is a good host, but he can get a little too hyper. Sounds like he drinks 7 or 8 cups of coffee or Red Bull energy drink before Hardball goes on the air on MSNBC.
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 12:58PM
Edward said...
The networks were actually using polls from a number of different sources/schools and they were mostly wrong. The closest one was the Suffolk University/WHDH poll, and it was close on the Democratic side.
Brokaw was actually saying how they should focus on the candidates and analysis of the issues.
I liked how Matthews took at shot at the other networks, saying how MSNBC was bold enough to project Clinton the winner, while the other two networks waited until Obama conceded. CNN was funny: it was showing Obama walking to the stage, and it broke away to breaking news..."CNN is now ready to project Hilary Clinton as winner of the NH primary."
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 1:02PM
Ry said...
Sigh, not the first or the last time this has happened. They will never learn.
http://rosenblumtv.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/dewey_defeats_truman.jpg
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 1:03PM
Ken said...
I agree that Matthews can be annoying, and at times he was really annoying last night, but I really like him. He's very much of an insider, having worked for Tip O'Neill, and he's a Vietnam vet. Those experiences give him a rather unique insight, and a general disgust in business as usual. He's angry and outspoken.
Now, as far as the coverage is concerned, it was fairly abysmal. I watched MSNBC, because they clearly devote the most time to politics. Plus I have a real distaste for some of the commentators, like Bill Bennett, who were on CNN. The press is trying to create the next president, and if we don't watch out, they will. First they were burying HRC, and now they're trying to bury Barack Obama. All of their polls and analyses could not have been more wrong, and they still show very little humility.
I did like Brokaw's comment that perhaps the press, including NBC, should stop trying influence the election, and let people vote the way their conscience tells them to.
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 1:10PM
Tom said...
I doubt the networks were that surprised or annoyed by this.
If you are a News network what you are trying to do is frame the events in a way that tells an interesting story so the viewer will tune in. “Everyone thought Hilary Clinton was going to win the nomination and she did” is not a great story.
That’s why they were looking for any stumble in her campaign so they can make it look like she’s fallen. Then afterwards the story becomes “Hilary was the front runner until she fell to the point where it didn’t look like she was going to win but through determination she overcame the odds and rose back to the top”. That IS a good story
So what they did was to take a minor stumbling block (Obama’s win in Iowa) and turn it in to a big thing by spending the time between then and now predicting that he had the momentum and that he’d easily win New Hampshire. So now Hilary losing one primary will be remembered much bigger than it was and they can refer back to it later.
In the coming weeks you can expect to hear media pundits talking about how “she almost lost the race early on”.
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 1:51PM
Oreo said...
They also didn't call it for Clinton, who I think is evil and the crying was a fake, for a few hours when it was clear it wasn't nearly as close as they thought.
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 2:00PM
Lou said...
The problem with the "Media" is that they open for business at the start of their day with their Headlines already written and their flashy graphics already done. Like what was said "it makes a better STORY" and then they get bent out of shape if the world doesn't bend to their preconceived notions.
Here's an idea...How's about you just report the news as it happens and leave the story-telling to J.K. Rowling and Stephen King?
I think that they should be made to where signs around their necks (the Talking head pundits, that it although the same should be done in print for the newspapers) that has an updated statistic of how accurate their projections have turned out to be. Anything less than 75% gets their air time revoked. That's the only way to get some new blood in those chairs
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 2:07PM
Stephen Waits said...
Mainstream media is not "the press" any more. Realize that. They're all big corporations, they ALL have agendas.
Please, for the sake of our future, stop watching that crap and go do your own research on ALL of the candidates (in ALL parties) - I guarantee you will be very surprised at what you learn!
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 2:17PM
yanosh said...
As used to his generally annoying on-air persona as I thought I had become, I was struck by the flagrant anti-Clinton hostility that Matthews oozed. It was not only that attitude, it was the equally obnoxious drooling over Obamamania along with Joe Scarborough and his puppy, Mika. Can't the networks just invite guests on to espouse the greatness of the candidates and avoid the bias.
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 2:38PM
Eddie said...
I have every reason to believe the Clinton camp was behind a lot of these polls showing a serious Obama skew just so she could be the "comeback kid" like the first Clinton. The reason the story was so big was even "polling from the Clinton camp" had her losing in NH. Fake, just like her tears and her promises.
Obama: Change We Can Believe In.
http://www.barackobama.com
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 3:03PM
ac said...
I was as shocked as they were that she won. Shows you what happens when you give speeches for a week while trying to hold back tears.
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 2:42PM
Scott said...
I watched MSNBC most of the night. Here's the best thing about the polls: the pre-Iowa and pre-NH polls could be swapped, and they'd be perfect! Before Iowa, it was expected to be close, with Hillary winning. Before NH, an Obama blowout was expected. We got exactly the opposite. I can blame the networks for hyping poll data as if it were accurate, but I also blame the pollsters for not coming up with better models. If you count in what happened in the last 2 presidential elections, election polling in this country, pre-vote and exit polling, is just about always wrong, and the opposite of what actually happens (this also assumes no election theft in 2000 and 2004, an assumption I'm not willing to make).
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 2:44PM
david said...
so am i the only one who was confused by this headline/article??
I saw the headline obama defeats clinton, the chandler bing statement ("could the networks be more wrong?"), and the picture projecting hillary as the winner.
This lead me to one conclusion... that the networks were wrong about clinton and obama had made a late surge to win again.
Boy did i feel stupid when i stated calling people with that info. Thanks guys
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 3:01PM
Rob said...
No you're not the only one. I was confused too (still am).
Am I really that dense or is there something I don't know?
1-09-2008 @ 3:36PM
david said...
its not just you rob... getting the same response from everyone i sent this link to
i think some tvsquad writers might need a "sarcasm201 : sarcasm in writing" refresher course
1-09-2008 @ 2:45PM
Scott said...
As far as MSNBC's coverage goes, I broke down and made a news crawl cover out of cardboard to preserve my sanity. I hate those things and can't watch more than 5 minutes with them. Matthews was all right. Olbermann was a total professional, earning more points as a serious anchorman (that seriousness and lack of bias is not always evident on his own show, which I like for what it is). I found all the trips to Williams, Russert, and Brokaw kind of useless. Williams & Brokaw really didn't have much meaningful to add, and Russert didn't get an opportunity to do what he does best, get all geeky with the numbers.
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 3:02PM
Edward said...
Wouldn't it be better if Brokaw, Olbermann and Williams led the broadcast?
1-09-2008 @ 3:17PM
eugene said...
Come on, if the networks didn't learn their lesson after the 2000 presidential elections, what made anyone think they would learn now?
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 3:41PM
david said...
i dont understand what the big deal is here. Help me understand here.... Did any news agency ever really project Obama as the winner and/or announce he had "officially" won. As far as i can tell the worst they did was PREDICT he was going to be the winner.
Does this mean i should be all up in arms the on sunday if a room full of ESPN analysts predict the New England Patriots are going to win, only to be upset by the San Diego Chargers.
* sorry for the repost wanted to make it its own post so others could reply
Reply
1-09-2008 @ 4:31PM
eugene said...
Well, I thought it was funny that McCain was announced the winner when he had a measely 3 point lead over Mitt, but when Clinton was ahead by as much as four points, CNN was still saying, "too close to call."