Wednesday, October 27, 2004

We did it

Personally, I have no idea what impact my relentless online-poll-voting and letter to the editor writing had on the final conventional wisdom of the debates. But, as Howie 'the Putz' Kurtz mentions in a badly mis-titled article, the media coverage of Bush was sharply negative, with 59% of stories negative (Kurtz, who put the 'ho' in media whore, is the media reporter for the WPost, while also working for CNN, which he ostensibly covers for the Post) You can read it here

What Kurtz doesn't seem able to say is that Bush's performances in the debates were objectively horrible, from the smirks and scowls of debate one, via the anger of debate two to the drugged lies of debate three. Kurtz seems to say that it's the newspaper's left-wing slant that caused these horrible reviews.

He does, deeper in the article, explain that Gore's ratings in the newspapers were as bad as Bush's, but Kurtz just can't seem to rid himself of the 'newspapers are liberal' meme.

Whatever. A win's a win. And Bush lost those debates, Kerry won them, and the newspapers let Kerry have the win. I'll take that.

1 Thoughts:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, another pundit fails to grasp the distinction between 'balance' and 'objectivity'. Balance is a myth characterized by the fallacy of the middle ground. Objectivity is the application of a consistent standard for truth to both sides--and let the chips fall where they may. We need more objectivity, less false 'balance'

Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:25:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home