You know it’s not just how debate participants are chosen. It’s that the news media is in a sense running our lives by deciding what’s important and what’s not, by placing undo importance on polls (always, not just during elections), by the use of “pundits” whose vanities can make or break a candidate.
Last night, when asked about Fred Thompson in SC, Krauthammer declared he was “dead”. A week and a half before the primary, and you’ve made the decision for the voters of SC? I mean really, how dare you be so presumptuous as to decide he’s out? He came in second in Wyoming, 3rd in Iowa, but he’s “dead”?? But Guiliani is somehow viable only because of their precious polling nationally. I guess it doesn’t occur to them how much that hurts a campaign.
And I am sorry for the Duncan Hunter supporters because the media decided he wasn’t worth covering before the race even started.
On the contrary,It does occur to the FAUX guys what they are doing.They are against a conservative candidate anyway you cut it.They have their marching orders and will not say anything positive with regards to Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson.rooty,romney mcnutts all the time.
This is so true! And remember what the MSM did with the Bush & Gore election?
And, as a kind of aside - look what the MSM & Wall Street are doing to our economy. They're pushing us toward a recession with their cries of doom and gloom. I've been tuning the news out when they start with this crap.
visualops: “Last night, when asked about Fred Thompson in SC, Krauthammer declared he was “dead”. A week and a half before the primary, and you’ve made the decision for the voters of SC?”
Pundits are paid to make these sort of asinine statements. I generally like Krauthammer, but how is he or any other talking head qualified to say that? Kirsten Powers, for example, looks nice, but does that give her the power to predict the future? NO! But some viewers suck it up like it’s fact. If only 10-20% change their opinion, it changes the race (after which, the pundit will see a change in the polls and say the candidate is dying as predicted).
When a respected pundit says a campaign is dead, it drives people and money away. Perception is VERY important. So when people take pundits seriously, it ends up harming the very candidates the people think are best (but won’t vote for now because of a perception of unelectability shaped by the media).
People should look behind the curtain and ignore these Wizard of Oz media creations. They would realize pundits are normal people with no expertise outside of very small areas. If, for example, Krauthammer wanted to comment on writing columns or appearing on TV, he’d speak with some authority. If, on the other hand, he’s making a prediction based on polls, his opinion is no more valid than my neighbor or anyone else.
“You know it’s not just how debate participants are chosen. It’s that the news media is in a sense running our lives by deciding what’s important and what’s not, by placing undo importance on polls (always, not just during elections), by the use of “pundits” whose vanities can make or break a candidate.
Last night, when asked about Fred Thompson in SC, Krauthammer declared he was “dead”. A week and a half before the primary, and you’ve made the decision for the voters of SC? I mean really, how dare you be so presumptuous as to decide he’s out? He came in second in Wyoming, 3rd in Iowa, but he’s “dead”?? But Guiliani is somehow viable only because of their precious polling nationally. I guess it doesn’t occur to them how much that hurts a campaign.
And I am sorry for the Duncan Hunter supporters because the media decided he wasn’t worth covering before the race even started.”
You bring up some very good points about the media trying to make our decisions for us.
I do think there is good news though. There have been 3 elections and 3 different first place winners. I see this as a sign that, while people are buying into the media talk some, they are not buying into it enough. If they were, Romney would probably have won Iowa and Wyoming. I think McCain would have won NH either way. SC will tell us a lot about what the GOP voters are really doing. If a 4th candidate takes 1st in SC we will have different winners in each of the first 4 states. I am not sure that has happened before, but I would take that as an indication that the people are not automatically buying what the LSM is selling.