8. februar 2004

Political reporters ignoring the voters Jeff Jarvis is accusing political journalists for being lazy. They are, he argues, not even reporting properly, just repeating what anyone can look up on the Net. Is political reporting really reporting when most of the material that's reported is available to all of us on the Internet? We can hear what the candidate says in his stump speech. We can read the candidate's stand on his web site. We can analyze the same polls the reporters analyze (to make bad bets on the horse race). So what are the reporters really giving us we can't get online? They can hear the party line in the spin zone -- but that's not useful and it's not really reporting. What is missing, and what would make the political reporters useful again, is the people an election campaign is supposed to be about in the first place, the voters. What do they mean and say? The real story is the voters. What do the voters think of the candidates? (Nobody reported that story on Howard Dean worth a damn, or they would have known he wasn't the front runner when they said he was.) What are the issues that really matter to the voters? (As opposed to the issues the candidates and pundits think matter.) How much does the campaign really matter in voters' lives? (A lot less than any politician or pundit thinks.) That's the real reason to be out on the road: To hear what the voters have to say, to listen. Not only the political reporters, but also the bloggers have been missing the real story, Jeff argues. Via Tim Blair. I think it is very true that political journalists are not doing their jobs. In fact, that journalists are not doing their jobs is a persistent theme of this blog and quite a few others across the blogsphere. I am, however, not so certain that Dean's demise would have been caught with more attention to the voters. After all, the early opinion polls reflected real voters, it was just that they changed their minds once they learned to know the candidates better. Would Dean be doing better today if Saddam was still hiding in his spider hole? I don't think so, but we'll never know for sure. 11:14:17 PM    comment []  trackback []

Evolution and religion Pharyngula pointed me towards a great site: Understanding evolution. Very impressive! And yes, I agree with Myers that the article about the compatibility between religion and evolution is wishy-washy, overly PC and outright wrong. It would maybe be nice if hard science did not have a conflict with theistic religion, but people are fooling themselves if they are denying that evolutionary science has some implications that aren't very good for many (but not all) religious ideas. When religions make statements about what is (as opposed to what ought to be), they are making statements that are ultimately scientific. And in those cases, religions are almost invariably wrong. 10:07:19 PM    comment []  trackback []

Censors ban car brand A new censorship committee in Malaysia's capital Kuala Lumpur has banned a new play for making reference to the car brand Wolkswagen. The committee can remove any reference to sensitive racial matters, religious beliefs, royalty, the law, public policy or anything considered vulgar. And German cars, apparently. 9:06:31 PM    comment []  trackback []

From A to Z Prof. Robert Fradkin at University of Maryland has put up a very informative and interesting page for his "History of the Alphabets" course online. It allows us to see in illustrations how alphabets have developed over time, even how individual letters have been derived. Click the individual alphabets (e.g. Latin character set) to see the animations. Thanks to Volokh. 7:35:32 PM    comment []  trackback []

Today's action "A prison inmate who escaped by brandishing a fake gun made of toilet paper, tape and black ink was captured four days later after a gunfight with police on a busy Omaha street." (CNN) Because he only brought the toilet paper gun to the gun fight, presumably. 6:43:07 PM    comment []  trackback []

Kerry increasing lead John Kerry won significant victories in Saturday's democratic caucuses in Washington state and Michigan. Kerry leads big, but has yet to win in the south. Dean made a distant #2 in states that used to be his strongholds. In the upcoming southern states, he doesn't have much of a chance. Edwards and Clark, on the other hand, really need a win in Virginia, Tennessee or Wisconsin to remain in the race. Dean is betting it all on Wisconsin. Kerry needs to stumble badly to not become the presidential candidate. Yes, a lot of us said the same about Dean, but now we are seeing real votes being cast. Kerry really needs to strengthen his position in the south to really have a chance against Bush in November. Maybe that is where vice presidential candidate Edwards can come in? In my opinion, chosing Dean or Clark as the running mate would be a significant mistake. 2:47:15 PM    comment []  trackback []

© Copyright 2004 Jan Haugland. Last update: 01.03.2004; 14:41:42.