 |
The NYTimes Reads Chris Bowers |
 |
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton needs three breaks to wrest the Democratic presidential nomination from Senator Barack Obama in the view of her advisers.
She has to defeat Mr. Obama soundly in Pennsylvania next month to buttress her argument that she holds an advantage in big general election states.
She needs to lead in the total popular vote after the primaries end in June.
And Mrs. Clinton is looking for some development to shake confidence in Mr. Obama so that superdelegates, Democratic Party leaders and elected officials who are free to decide which candidate to support overturn his lead among the pledged delegates from primaries and caucuses.
And Chris Bowers, almost a month ago:
Clinton now faces an insurmountable pledged delegate deficit. At this point, her only path to the nomination is to vastly outperform polling in most remaining states, and then utterly dominate Obama among superdelegates / uncommitted delegates and also to receive favorable rulings from the credentials committee. However, Obama has more regularly outperformed polling than Clinton, the credentials committee is largely controlled by whoever wins the most pledged delegates, and even all of the superdelegate momentum is in favor of Obama, where he has reduced Clinton’s advantage by a net of 33 superdelegates in just two weeks. All of these contingencies are unlikely on their own, but Clinton needs all of them to combine in a perfect storm.
Good to see the blogosphere so far out in front of the mainstream press. Another reason to turn to blogs for your analysis.
I agree that some blogs are great, Jason, but some are absolutely horrible. It’s more responsible to say that you should get news from multiple sources and not just the mainstream media. It’s irresponsible to turn completely the blogosphere considering how little fact checking and accountability there is. It may be farther out in front but it’s also full of rumors and lies that haven’t been vetted at all. At the very least, the NYTimes and other newspapers have some fact checking (though one can argue about whether or not it’s enough) that blogs simply don’t have.
I think it’s a matter of, turn to the mainstream media for your news. They get the facts. But when it comes to analysis, turn to the blogs. In my own world, the two form a symbiotic relationship of news gathering. Each helping me to better understand the other.
Perhaps but I am loathe to ignore the mainstream media’s analysis considering that intelligent voices like Paul Krugman and Keith Olbermann work for mainstream outlets. Also, I’ve read plenty of insipid, stupid “analysis” in the blogosphere. So I’d say that blogs are a supplement rather than a replacement.
Overall, I think we agree, I just find good stuff in mainstream outlets that shouldn’t be ignored.
Like anything else, you need to know your source. Some news outlets or columnists in the MSM are great, and some are crap. Same with bloggers. But I wouldn’t hesitate to turn to a blogger first. Sometimes their analysis is not only better, but more timely.
The quality has little to do with whether or not they’re bloggers. It has to do with the depth of their thought and ability to express it.
Though you’re right on the timeliness issue. That is blogging’s major strength and major weakness. On the good side, it can help get news and analysis out faster. On the bad side, it can often lead to sloppy thinking and little (if any) fact checking. The rush to be first often removes the ability to step back, take a deep breath, and think things through.
Though I’ve been saddened by the state of the media generally since the rush to be first has infected everything to the detriment of the truth.