Exactly.
I don’t care what the Fox pundits think of who “won” the election. But it did matter to me that they had no clue that the very things they rapped McCain for were grounds for cheering from his base. That was like them telling a large swath of viewers: “you are utterly invisible to us.”
BTW, CNN and TIME mag called the debate for McCain-—you KNOW what it takes to get that result. The CNN-o-meters were flatlining for Obamba all night.
Plus, if these so-called “experts” are going to opine on the ridiculous Luntz unfocused groups, they ought to at least have one of their minions monitoring both FR and DU live threads as a way to see how a more real-world reaction-meter is trending.
Dear Special Report:
When many, many viewers tune in to your debate coverage and think, “Did they even see the same debate I did?,” something is wrong with your so-called “expert” analysis. I am linking to a thread that would be worthwhile reading for the talking heads and producers alike. Many good suggestions.
Please be clear: this is not about “disagreeing” with the conclusions of your pundits. It is about their utterly ignoring the fact that a debate operates in multiple dimensions; it is not all about its impact on the mushy middle or about who “won” (by whatever subjective standard).
The host, panel and guests’ performance was dismal and embarrassing from top to bottom. Why? Because they demonstrated not one clue as to what was animating the candidates’ base and how the debate operated within that sphere. That, to be kind, is not a very “expert” analysis.
Again, it would be different if your “experts” had acknowledged, say, that certain issues were important to the base, that the debate might have had certain impacts on supporters, even if the “experts” then went on to disagree with that or explain it away. But nothing of the sort was even acknowledged, much less credited with any effect in the real world.
So your “experts” managed to miss the only newsworthy aspect of the debate-—that it completely fired up many McCain supporters and completely bummed out many Obama supporters (whether your “experts” agree such reactions are founded)-—while focusing *exclusively* on the dumb and ultimately nebulous issue of whether the debate “changed” any one voter’s mind. That may be a point to address briefly, but please: get a clue that the still-unfocused voter is only one side of the coin, the other being *turnout of the base.*
In sum, I and many others were extremely disappointed with the fact that each and every participant on “Special Report’s” debate coverage seemed to phone it in this time. Blech on you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2106700/posts