home

A Media Critique

For this post, I am going to pretend that NBC's Keith Olbermann (and the normally fair and astute Chuck Todd) are hardworking journalists who are just misguided. I am going to offer a measured critique of what I think was wrong with their news reporting last night. Join me on the flip.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me

In reporting on the Democratic campaign, Keith Olbermann was joined by NBC Political Director Chuck Todd. Here are the parts I found problematic:

OLBERMANN: All right. Well, to continue this discussion that we started last night, when it comes to the pledged delegate count, is this thing basically over? Did anything change, in fact, last night?

TODD: Nothing really changed at all. In fact, look, if we treated this the way we would call an election in a state, you know, the way are our numbers guru, Shelly Gweiser (ph) and Evans Whitman (ph), they‘re looking at this stuff, we would call it. It‘s over. The pledged delegate count is going to be Obama‘s, it‘s just is - because of proportionality, it is mathematically impossible for her to take the lead.

(Emphasis supplied.) Is it in fact mathematically impossible for Clinton to take the pledged delegate lead? In fact, it is not. Is it highly improbable? Of course. The proper phrase to use, as a journalist, is highly improbable. It is false to say it is mathematically impossible, particularly since Michigan and Florida may still have their delegations seated. The phrase "mathematically impossible" has a factual meaning. Todd's statement is simply false. And a journalist should NEVER state a deliberate falsehood.

How do I know it is false? Why Chuck Todd himself tells me:

In fact, when you start look at these percentages, right now, she would need 69 percent of all remaining delegates to take the lead.

While it is highly improbable that Clinton can win 69% of the remaining pledged delegates, it clearly is not mathematically impossible. Continuing, Todd says:

After May 6th, assuming a 50 /50 split of those delegates that are up for grabs, and that‘s being very generous to Senator Clinton in this case, then suddenly she would have to win 85 percent of the remaining delegates. That is impossible because of the fact Obama‘s name will be on the ballot on a lot of these places and as long as he gets 16 percent of the vote instead of 15 percent, he will win the pledged delegate count.

"Assuming a 50/50 split in delegates on May 6th." Of course, if you assume it won't happen, then you can say, you have assumed it won't happen. Please understand my argument, I am not saying it is unreasonable to say it is highly improbable and to report that, but Chuck Todd does not know what is going to happen with certainty. He simply does not. Here is an example. On the night of the Pennsylvania primary, when the margin was 8 and about 45% of the precincts were out, Todd stated WITH CERTAINTY, that the final margin would lower to 6 or 7 because the Philly suburbs were not yet in. Of course, as I wrote that night, Chuck was wrong. A journalist sticks to the facts. Continuing:

OLBERMANN: And the new metric, the latest of whatever it is, 16 different metrics that we‘ve seen from that Clinton campaign, the popular vote argument: you have to include Michigan and Florida. Florida alone doesn‘t cut it. Michigan, where Obama‘s name didn‘t appear on the ballot, where Clinton signed a pledge promising the election would not count and gave radio interviews to that exact construction of the sentence, you need both of them in order to put her ahead in the popular vote.

(Emphasis supplied.) The highlighted statement from Olbermann is false. The pledge said no such thing. A journalist should NEVER report a deliberate falsehood. Continuing, Todd discusses the popular vote issue:

TODD: . . . And so, even if you do, go ahead and throw in Florida, she has to find 200,000 votes somewhere in the remaining contest. She then—that means she can‘t lose a contest. I mean, North Carolina and Oregon are two places that she is going to be a heavy underdog, that she could lose by double digits in both states.

So, she can‘t afford to even lose at all in order to find 200,000 votes because if she lost there and let‘s say lost a net - she could lose as much as 150,000 votes out of North Carolina. But let‘s say 100,000 votes out of North Carolina, well then, she‘s got to find 300,000 votes, it‘s just not there. Kentucky and West Virginia, she‘s going to win big, even if she wins big she‘s going to net maybe 100,000 votes.

And I know I‘m like talking with a lot of numbers here and it‘s getting a little number crazy, but that‘s a metric that they‘ve inserted into this game and yet it‘s not going to work either.

(Emphasis supplied.) The highlighted statements are presented as fact and are either false or opinion while being presented as fact. Clinton can certainly lose some contests and win the popular vote. This is not a difficult calculation either. Narrow losses and big wins is all you need to think about. A journalist should NEVER deliberately report false information.

For the last part of my critique, I want to point to Olbermann and Todd's discussion of Puerto Rico:

OLBERMANN: MSNBC and NBC News political director, Chuck Todd, of whom I read online today. Chuck, don‘t let yourself be pressured into discounting the vital importance of the vote in Puerto Rico. So, I‘m just passing that along, somebody might (INAUDIBLE) seriously.

TODD: Hey, I‘m hearing 2 million people might vote in Puerto Rico.

OLBERMANN: Don‘t discount it.

TODD: There you go. Except, they don‘t have a vote for an actual president. That‘s correct, right?

OLBERMANN: Thank you, Chuck. Don‘t discount it.

Let's leave aside the patronizing tone about Puerto Rico, which was offensive, the misunderstanding of the notion of the popular vote is incredible. Now Todd and Olbermann know that Puerto Rico, like other territories and/or commonwealths, have the right to select delegates to help determine who the Democratic nominee for President will be. It so happens Puerto Rico has 55 delegates, more than Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Utah and other states won by Barack Obama. And indeed, the Democrats have only a slightly better chance of gaining electoral votes from those states than they do from Puerto Rico. Very slightly better chance.

And the point is this, the popular vote is not a metric based on having a vote in November, it is a metric based on having a vote in DECIDING WHO WILL BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! The concept of the Will of the People does not just apply to the Presidential election. It applies to the Democratic nomination process. It so happens that THE RULZ call for the Democrats of Puerto Rico to have a say in who is the Democratic nominee. Having given them that say, it is in no way illegitimate to argue to the Super Delegates that the votes of the Democrats in Puerto Rico are part of the total reflection of the will of the people regarding who should be the Democratic nominee.

There were two things wrong (besides the offensiveness) with the statements of Olbermann and Todd regarding Puerto Rico. First, they did not properly describe the popular vote argument. To wit, they falsely reported the popular vote argument. Journalists should never falsely report facts. Secondly, they opined on the merits of the popular vote argument they falsely described. Even if they had properly reported the argument, it is improper for journalists to let their reporting be tainted with their opinion.

I remind that this post was written with the assumption (one of Todd's favorite words) that Olbermann and Todd are trying to do real journalism here.

< Denounce And Reject | Ruh-roh: Obama Going On Fox >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    (applause) (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:31:31 PM EST
    n/t

    if only they could be (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:33:53 PM EST
    listening

    Someone should re-run that old episode (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:37:22 PM EST
    of "The Odd Couple" for them, the one where Felix points out to Oscar that when you "assume" you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me". The "journalists" surely gave an excellent illustration of that.

    Parent
    All else being equal, it's a crime PR can't vote (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by jerry on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:34:00 PM EST
    How can they have 55 delegates and no say in the election?

    We should make them a state already, or let them become independent.

    Statehood for Puerto Rico (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:56:52 PM EST
    has to be decided by the people who live in Puerto Rico. There isn't a consensus, as I understand it.

    In any event, as someone of Puerto Rican descent, I find Olbermann's belittling of voters on the island offensive.  They have relatives on the Mainland. And BTW, if they move up here, they can vote.

    Parent

    KO Sez What He Needs To Where Obama is Concerned (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:38:12 PM EST
    I think when he tanked for Obama, he lost all sense of reason and fairness.  KO is NOT a journalist.  When he was objective and honest, he did a pretty good job.  Those days are gone!

    Russert was just as bad (none / 0) (#34)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:12:42 PM EST
    last night (I know, I know, it was on when I walked into the room).  He talked about how the race looks now, and totally left out MI and FL.  I know no one wants to hear this (at least outside of TL) but they are a factor.  Almost 3 million people voted in those states.  If three million Americans got together and held a party, it would be on the news.  They go to the polls and NBC completely ignores it.

    That's just irresponsible journalism.

    Parent

    Irresponsible Journalism Is All Timmeh Has Known (none / 0) (#67)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:14:04 PM EST
    ...for a very long time now.  He became drunk with power the election cycle when he used that dry-erase board to show results and everyone was talking about it.  Now he thinks he is da-bomb...lmao

    Parent
    The Math (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:38:55 PM EST
    Since Obama's humiliating defeat on Tuesday, his supporters on the Internet and in the media have been particularly fixated on The Math.  I always have found flesh and blood better comfort than cold numbers, but I guess we human beings take what we can get.

    The problem with the math (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    is it requires assumptions.

    For example, I assume Obama will win big in NC, BTW I do not think he wins big with the delegates in NC, See Aabama. But it is an opinion, NOT a fact.

    Todd makes an assumption I strongly disagree with, that Clinton can not win big in Indiana. SUSA has her up 16 with very believable demo breakdowns.  

    As for Oregon, SUSA has it pretty close.

    As for the rest, Todd does not even explain his math.

    It is simply ridiculous journalism from him to say it is "mathematically impossible."

    Parent

    The reason Todd doesn't explain his math (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by thomphool on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:23:10 PM EST
    is that it doesn't add up.  It's actually within the realm of possibility that, not including PR, Clinton, depending on turnout levels could pick up between 125,000 votes and 175,000 votes or so in the remaining states.  If she won Indiana by high single digits, lost NC by low double digits, lost Oregon by low single digits, lost Montana and SD by low double digits then won very decisive victories in West Virgnia and Kentucky.  

    No one in the MSM seems to want to talk about it, but those states are probably the best two states in the country demographically for her.  Not the two best remaining, the two best period. Todd saying she can only come out of them w/ 100,000 votes is just flat out ignoring the facts.  100,000 votes coming out of those 2 states would assume a 20 point Clinton win in those states w/ 60% of Kerry's 2004 vote turning out.  Looking at Demographics and comparing it not just to state level data, but data on county levels from various similar counties in bordering and similar states, that seems to be a far low end estimate.  Simply put, there are not enough African Americans in either of those states (or upper income progressives) to avoid large margins in both states.   200,000+ combined margins in those two states is within the realm of possibility. 200K+ is certainly within a single standard deviation of the mean of likely outcomes in those states.

    If things go that way, and that's not to say they will, but it is to say that if demographic trends hold as they have thus far in the primary process, even by the most generous popular vote count in Obama's favor (which stands at roughly 600K votes right now), it's still very plausible that the gap heading into Puerto Rico is around 400,000 votes.  If Clinton does well there, it doesn't mean  that she will make up the 400K votes to take over the popular vote (though honestly, no one knows at this point how PR is going to go down.  Could it happen?  Maybe, I have no idea).  After all the voting is done, it's certainly very possible that the popular vote total is within the Florida margin, even with all Michigan votes being thrown out.  

    This is largely, I think, why the pledged delegate number is being pushed so hard by so many.  The popular vote count, and who is ahead in the end is still a very open question...

     

    Parent

    The are completely ignoring the fact... (none / 0) (#11)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:44:41 PM EST
    that Obama himself called Indiana 'The Tiebreaker'

    Parent
    Heh, (none / 0) (#27)
    by flashman on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:01:18 PM EST
    they are more in the tank for Obama than the man himself. :)

    Parent
    Harry Paget Flashman is that You? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:08:30 PM EST
    Ram-ram husoor.

    Mera Jhansi denge ney!

    Parent

    So if he loses, he will withdraw?? (none / 0) (#66)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:47:09 PM EST
    Or will he suddenly decide that going all the way to the convention is the only way to find out the real will of the people? I can't wait to see what happens! Who knew that primary season would be better than any soap opera ever written?? I remember when they were filled with debates, policy discussions and other things that were not terribly exciting. This one is fun!! All sorts of stuff going on that never went on before..it's like watching a summer long mini-series, it really is. I would watch Obama on Fox, just to see what happens there, but I had them taken off my sat lineup. Took some arguing too, I can tell you! They kept saying, "But it's part of your package!!" I kept saying "I don't want trash in my house!!". Finally they turned it off..LOL

    Parent
    NC is different from AL (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:48:14 PM EST
    because Democrats drew the NC map, and AAs are more spread out.

    Parent
    That's What You Get (none / 0) (#24)
    by flashman on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:58:56 PM EST
    with journalists being mathematicians.  Many will just accept what they say, because since they are on the TV, they MUST be smart.  KO suggested, after the interview with HRC, that she undercut her argument about experience and being ready when she said McCain's policies are wrong.  Can he really be that stupid?  Math and logic are two things we shouldn't trust to journalists.
     Yesterday, there was some discussion about whether or not Hillary was being honest about being in the lead in popular votes.  I finally got around to reading what she really said, which was that out of all the votes cast, more people voted for her than any other candidate.  In fact that's true!  None of the popular vote metrics are going to be 'official.'  In the strict official sense, popular vote doesn't matter in this contest.  However, since each candidate has to count on party officials to put them over the threshold for the nomination, they will each have to try to sell their own version of what the popular vote means.  IMO, Hillary's argument is very powerful.  If we assume she won Michigan big only because Barak and Edwards voluntarily took their names off the ballot, then we should also take a look at what was gained by the candidates in doing so.  Either way, both Hillary and Barak will have to implore the SD's to use their imagination to understand their side of the argument.  I think Hillary's point is a good one to any thinking official.


    Parent
    I'm inclined to give Todd a break (none / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:05:49 PM EST
    particularly on live TV.  He's been about the only objective voice of reason on TV.  Giving him a break, and having heard him talk about this stuff quite a bit over the last weeks, I assume his intent was to say "effectively," rather than mathematically.  I give him credit for having to struggle to keep his bearings in an environment there at NBC/MSNBC that is full of idiots and CDS.

    Olbermann just flatly doesn't know what he's talking about and should be prohibited by the network from entering into that kind of territory.  Let him blather to his heart's content about Tuzla and Bill Clinton and everything else about the Clinton campaign that offends his delicate sensibilities, but he should be kept off the technical issues around delegates and vote-counting.  Those of us who are mathematically disadvantaged do better to limit ourselves to asking questions of people who do know what they're talking about and nodding sagely at their answers, especially in live discussions.

    Parent

    PR is why I believe (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    that Hillary stands an excellent chance of winning the overall popular vote.

    There is also Florida, of course, which it would be outrageous not to consider.

    Transformations (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Petey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:44:44 PM EST
    "For this post, I am going to pretend that NBC's Keith Olbermann (and the normally fair and astute Chuck Todd) are hardworking journalists who are just misguided."

    In the time between Iowa and Super Tuesday, Chuck Todd developed a facial twitch.  For a couple of days, it got so bad that he wore glasses on air to partially mask it.

    Before the twitch, both at Hotline and at General Electric, Todd had been an honest 'stats geek' type analyst.  The twitch marked the point when he adopted the GE "house style" on who to push in the nomination race.

    I've always imagined that the twitch came from Jack Welch waterboarding Todd to bring him into the fold.  Regardless, it's definitely the point in time where he became a loyal company man.

    Good catch! I never noticed that. I have (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:16:17 PM EST
    noticed lately when I see him, he seems to have a hostage look in his eyes. Like he's trying to tell us with his eyes that someone has a gun pointed at him off camera and that's why some stuff he doesn't believe is coming out of his mouth.

    Parent
    A media rant (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:50:13 PM EST
    Keith Olbermann and Chuck Todd are elitist Obama supporters making fools out of themselves selling bovine fecal matter to their like minded sycophants who in turn chow it down and call it caviar.

    Olbermann's "violent" comment (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by CookCountyDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    Tuesday night, Olbermann says on air that Clinton is trying to take the nomination away from Obama "violently so".

    "Violently"?

    Imagine that anyone from Clinton's campaign had used the word "violent" in association with Obama tactics.  Olbermann would be all over it...a Special Comment, a special show, certainly a "worst person" award.

    KO is apparently in favor of violence (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:25:49 PM EST
    as he suggested a superdelegate should take HRC into a room and only one should come back out.

    Parent
    what (none / 0) (#68)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:27:38 PM EST
    a cockroach olbermann is.  Vile, spreader of disease.....

    Parent
    Dumped KO when he became always Worse than (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:28:32 PM EST
    ... his choice for the Worst Person in the World.

    His misogyny is so pronounced, he's one "feminazi" clever eponym shy of matching Flaming Limbaugh for hating women.

    But hark, Obamann's dismissal of Puerto Rican voters because they might not get his guy over the finish line puts him up there for racism too.

    What do I care, I stopped watching long before I was for or against HRC ~or~ BO.

    KO once served a useful purpose in being the only on-ramp between bloggosphere and the mainstream. His services are no longer required in that respect, so can go somewhere and suck it (or just plain suck, which he's apparently doing.)

    Parent

    Keith should change the show's name... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Marco21 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:53:59 PM EST
    to Coronation since he's so ready to hold one for Barack.

    His bias on Tuesday night was more than obvious. It's was disgusting.  If he wants to be a tool on his show that's fin but he should be pulled from live election coverage for good.

    Thank You, BTD! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    I don't often turn on Olbermann these days, but I did happen to watch that interview last night, and noticed all the fallacies and spin being presented as fact. I expected it, and was not surprised, but it's good to know that you still have enough energy to document their dishonesty and call them on it.

    Ratings (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:59:41 PM EST
    Another point! I don't hear KO bragging about ratings anymore. To be honest I quit watching his show when he became the Obama spokeman. Maybe he's auditioning for press secretary?

    IACF (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:05:33 PM EST
    It's all Clinton's fault that KO's ratings have dropped.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:29:20 PM EST
    then, that's another thing Hillary has done right.

    Parent
    Notice How (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:24:35 PM EST
    They dis Florida and Michigan with a fictitious statement about a pledge Clinton didn't take and using a quote of hers out of context,* but they never EVER tell or show what The Math is with them included.  

    That's because when all states are counted, the current delegate difference shrinks a lot.  Today, Jerome Armstrong estimates that if Michigan's uncommitted stay uncommitted, Clinton could be behind as few as nine delegates (including supers).  Using Chris Bowers math, I figure that the pledged delegate difference would be 1611-1515 if Michigan and Florida are included.  

    But here's the thing, it looks like Obama will not get all of the uncommitted Michigan delegates because he's been totally outmaneuvered in the local conventions by Clinton.   If I'm doing the math right, he could lose 20 or more pledged delegates to Clinton because of his lame showing at the local conventions.  If that happens, then it's a forty or so delegate swing, making it 1591-1535.   Then there are the 31 Edwards delegates.  

    Back to BTD's point, I do not expect Clinton to take the lead in pledged delegates, but I can spin out a scenario where it's possible and not even crazy.   But that requires me to make a bunch of assumptions that may or may not turn out to be true, which is fine and all as long as I tell you that's what I'm doing and not reporting it as fact and so long as I also point out other ways things could go.  

    The Michigan thing, in particular, is interesting because I'm beginning to think Obama got played.  He should've agreed to a re-vote.  He would've done better than 15% loss and might've even won.  I suspect it was a matter if Hillary wants it, I don't.  Now, he's stuck basically arguing over whether the current breakdown should or should not be seated and if he loses that, it's going to hurt him in one of his key metrics.

    * Her comment that the Michigan vote won't count is often taken out of context.  It was said to a New Hampshire voter who was criticizing her decision to remain on the ballot and even then she noted her concern about completely not counting Michigan:

    "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

    Speaking in the first primary state, Clinton said she understands concerns about her refusal. Rivals Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden took their names off Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot this week, and Michigan's hope for nominating clout all but evaporated.

    Clinton's comment reflects an optimism she will win her party's nomination to face the Republican nominee in November 2008. She said any snub to Michigan could hurt her _ and all Democrats' _ chances to defeat the Republicans there.

    Clinton was prompted by a caller who said, "It strikes me that this is politics as usual, where politicians say one thing and do something else."

    Clinton brushed aside the comment.

    "I did not believe it was fair to just say, 'Goodbye Michigan' and not take into account the fact we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009," she said.

    The Democratic presidential candidates already had pledged not to campaign in Michigan because the state had broken Democratic National Committee rules by scheduling its primary ahead of Feb. 5. The rules ban states from holding their 2008 contests before Feb. 5, except Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

    The candidates are allowed to visit Michigan to raise money and can send their spouses to campaign, but they can't run advertisements, hold rallies or do most of the other things that would help give them a leg up on their opponents.

    Clinton said she wouldn't campaign there, but isn't about to hurt her own chances.

    "If you look at the some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow. And it wasn't, in my view, meaningful, but I'm not going to say there's an absolute, total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won't come back to haunt us if we're not careful about it."

    Not that I would expect Keith and Chuck to get their quotes from Nexis.  We all know they get them from Obama fan diaries.

    And am I the only one amused (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:26:33 PM EST
    about how Obama's fans constantly reference how the Math is on their side.  I know a lot of them are young, but surely they remember the 2006 elections and how the people claiming the Math, er, lost.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:32:01 PM EST
    I am just amazed at all the people who believe that whether or not the voters of MI get to have a say in this nomination is somehow conclusively determined by what Hillary said to some caller on a radio show in New Hampshire.  Lord knows they would never apply that kind of iron-clad estoppel argument to their own candidate's words.

    Parent
    I'm from Michigan (none / 0) (#52)
    by shadow on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:33:57 PM EST
    And I don't think our primary should be counted in any way. Hillary, along with the other candidates, signed a pledge to not campaign or participate. She did make the statement that it was clear that our primary would not count for anything. I don't see how you can take that out of context. The DNC said the results would be meaningless. Hers was the only name on the ballot of the major candidates. No one campaigned here. The election was totally flawed and undemocratic. To pretend otherwise is ludicrous. To count the results in any way would be a joke.

    By the way, I think both Hillary and Obama would make excellent candidates, especially considering the damage done to the country over the last 7 years.


    Parent

    shadow, respectfully... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:43:36 PM EST
    the post is about Chuck Todd and Keith Olbermann making false statements.

    You know what Olbermann said regarding the pledge you keep referring to. You also know that Olbermann's assertion was false. (See upthread for the copy of the pledge and the NPR conversation you're referring to.)

    Whether you agree with the false assertion, the situation in Michigan, or I should wear purple boxer shorts today is beside the point.

    (The boxer shorts thing is my attempt at humor. I think boxer shorts are funny.)

    The media has been irresponsible with the facts. Regardless of who benefits by this stupidity in the short-term, that the media is being so cavalier should make any thinking person nervous.

    I'll bet you'd even agree with me that a disregard for some level of objectivity on the part of the media is just wrong. We (used to, anyway) depend on the media to act as watchdog on those in power. We have a long tradition of muckraking heroes (Ida B. Wells is a personal favorite) who job it was to hold those in power to account. To make them responsible for their actions.

    This is an important and necessary activity for a functioning democracy. In exchange for this responsibility, members of the Fourth Estate are accorded certain protections, such as they don't have to reveal their sources. Journalism and ethics are supposed to go hand-in-hand for the betterment of all.

    And what we have here is a flagrant disregard of the fundamentals of journalistic integrity. And that's what BTD is pointing out.

    Parent

    Thanks for posting that! (none / 0) (#56)
    by pie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:45:22 PM EST
    I was trying to find the full quote to respond to someone above.  

    Parent
    I Don't Think When Your Network (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:58:23 PM EST
    Has "reporters" presenting sexist Hillary gadgets as gifts to hosts ON AIR, you can claim to be a real news network anymore.  Add in your flagship host wishes a Super Delegate would  "take [Clinton] into a room and only he comes out."  Funny, Keith pictures the Super Delegate as a HE.  Why am I not surprised.

    You can read it all at Shakesville.

    BTD since you are experienced in this area (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:37:12 PM EST
    alot more than I, what is your best guess on how that PR primary will go??

    andgarden do you have a recent poll of PR (none / 0) (#9)
    by athyrio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:43:39 PM EST
    that you are basing that assumption on?

    No, (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:47:44 PM EST
    and it's not an assumption, it's a possibility.

    Parent
    It's not as if... (none / 0) (#10)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:43:40 PM EST
    what they are doing isn't being done on all the networks, it's just that on the other networks, the motives are less transparent.

    That they play fast and loose with facts, characterizations, analysis...what a shock...I vaguely remember that is why I stopped watching them a few months ago.

    Thanks for watching them so I don't have to.

    BTD (none / 0) (#15)
    by joc on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:49:02 PM EST
    From the podcast of the show,

    So, I`m just passing that along, somebody might (INAUDIBLE) seriously.

    is

    So, I`m just passing that along, somebody meant that seriously.

    Also, the transcript fails to note Keith's laughter as he dismisses the people of Puerto Rico.

    well, in PR's defense (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:14:27 PM EST
    they laughingly dismiss KO, too. (as does everyone but his less than 1 million viewers)

    Parent
    Gently Critiquing the Critique (none / 0) (#17)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:51:22 PM EST
    You expose the difference between impossible and improbable nicely. I think it would be as useful to add exactly what did Clinton say that is misstated by KO with

    where Clinton signed a pledge promising the election would not count and gave

    That would add to the critique.

    At peace with that (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:56:17 PM EST
    A politician who made an error about signing a pledge is juxtaposed against one who references pledges to justify disenfranchisement.  The former is imperfect.  The latter is anti-democratic.

    My guess is Chuck and Keith weren't too quick to point out that Obama did not want re-votes.

    Did they pledge not to have revotes?

    Parent

    True enough (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    But readers of this site should be familiar with Jeralyn's dissection and I am too lazy to look for it now.

    Parent
    Popular Vote (none / 0) (#23)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:56:59 PM EST
    If the Democratic Party ignores the popular vote, they're no better than the Supreme Court in 2000. All the delegates from UT, MS, WY, KS, and the other red states will do absolutely nothing for the Party in November.

    Splitting Hairs (none / 0) (#28)
    by shadow on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:02:35 PM EST
    You're right. He should have said "highly improbable" rather than "mathematically impossible". However, in context of the conversation I think it was quite clear what was meant. Considering he was speaking aloud, I don't think it rises to the level of "stating a deliberate falsehood". If you parse the speech of every politician and commentator that closely, they'll all be guilty of frequently stating deliberate falsehoods.

    "Michigan, where Obama`s name didn`t appear on the ballot, where Clinton signed a pledge promising the election would not count"

    You claim that this is false. Clinton signed a pledge saying she would not campaign or participate in the Michigan primary. In an NPR interview last fall she said the Michigan primary would not count for anything.

    Again, you claim Olbermann was "reporting a deliberate falsehood". Again, you're way off base. He was speaking aloud. He did not quote the pledge she signed word for word, but his statement accurately represented Hillary's actions and statements.

    English is my second language (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:05:53 PM EST
    but I think "mathematically impossible" has a defined meaning.

    Parent
    shadow, I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:28:42 PM EST
    Chuck Todd spoke a deliberate falsehood. There is a factual difference between highly improbable and mathematically impossible. Surely you see that.

    This is not splitting hairs. Asking if you mean "thinking out loud" as opposed to "speaking aloud" (as opposed to speaking silently, which is what exactly?) in your post---that is hairsplitting.

    "Michigan, where Obama`s name didn`t appear on the ballot, where Clinton signed a pledge promising the election would not count"

    You claim that this is false. Clinton signed a pledge saying she would not campaign or participate in the Michigan primary. In an NPR interview last fall she said the Michigan primary would not count for anything.

    Olbermann's assertion regarding the pledge is false. And as Jeralyn pointed out, the pledge says:

    ... I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

    No where in this pledge does it say the election wouldn't count.

    Parent

    I've always wondered if Conyers (none / 0) (#58)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:53:12 PM EST
    and Obama urging people to vote for him by voting Uncommitted constituted campaigning thereby ignoring the stated promise of the agreement.

    Parent
    Shrug (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:55:57 PM EST
    Even the Michigan Democratic Party was telling people quite openly to vote Uncommitted if they liked one of the other candidates.  It's not really that big a deal, other than to rebut the bogus claim that Obama voters all stayed home because he wasn't on the ballot.

    I'd also note that Clinton surrogates like ex-Gov Blanchard did a certain amount of low-intensity GOTV for Hillary.  I don't think there's anything wrong with it unless it was organized in some way by the campaign itself.

    Parent

    As for Olbermann re: MI/FL (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:07:28 PM EST
    Your comment proves my point. you said something different than Olbermann said.

    It did NOT accurately reflect what the pledge said. YOUR statement did.

    Parent

    You're missing the point (none / 0) (#43)
    by shadow on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:24:59 PM EST
    In the context of the conversations, the statements are quite clear and reasonable accurate.

    If you parse everyone's spoken words that precisely, whether it's a politician or a commentator, you'd have to call them all liars. And that would include both Hillary and Obama.

    That just doesn't make sense.

    Parent

    I would offer (none / 0) (#49)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:30:44 PM EST
    That you may be missing the point. Words are important (who said that?), but for journalists they carry an even higher weight. So its not splitting hairs at all, they have very different connotations.

    I would even say if you take away the assumption in the diary that they are "honest journalist" it would be that they are purposefully lying.

    Ooopppss did I say that?

    Parent

    Quite clear and inaccurate (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:37:31 PM EST
    you in fact have proven my point.

    Parent
    Tv "journalists" are paid millions (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:04:47 PM EST
    to research, write, and speak with accuracy.

    Your contextual argument is just, well, crap.  But I am sure it will come in quite handy for others who are paid millions for accuracy.  Say, with KO's forte, professional sports figures.  I am looking forward to the basketball player paid millions to shoot with accuracy and missing an easy bucket then using your argument with the coach.  "But I meant to get it in the basket, and it was close to what I meant, so it's just good as actually getting it in the basket."

    The coach, the manager, the owner would recognize the contextual argument as crap.  That, you can count on as more than highly probable.

    Parent

    lord help me (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    If you parse the speech of every politician and commentator that closely, they'll all be guilty of frequently stating deliberate falsehoods.

    They are guilty of deliberately stating falsehoods. Is there any remaining doubt? You don't have to parse words closely to count at least 5 such examples in every edition of Hardball or Countdown.

    Parent

    Are you working off (none / 0) (#45)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:26:16 PM EST
    the definition that it's not a lie unless it'a written down?  That "speaking aloud" junk makes no sense at all otherwise.


    Parent
    Sigh (none / 0) (#32)
    by Manuel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:10:38 PM EST
    The media seems incapable of presenting anything other than simple arguments.  This isn't limited to politics.  Witness their difficulties when they try to describe NFL playoff scenarios.  That is basicallly what we have here.  They want to distill it to the simple math of pledged delegates but it isn't that simple.

    The elephant in the room is of course the FL and MI situation which they ignore for the most part.

    I am not surprised they want to dismiss PR.  Having dismissed MI and FL, what is 2M more votes?


    Over-simplification (none / 0) (#79)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:12:17 AM EST
    is definitely the problem.  It has been for awhile.  

    Hillary's argument regarding the super-delegates is actually the accurate one.  The rest are spouting pure opinion.  In point of fact, delegate count has nothing to do with this election.

    Unless he can reach the delegate count required, the super delegates could give their votes to Bozo the Clown if they wished.

    The assumption is that whomever is ahead in delegates wins because nobody would want to upset the Obama voters.

    That's a stupid assumption, frankly.

    If she pulls, and she will I think, ahead in popular vote then they will have the same exact problem to face with her supporters.

    The SMART Democratic super delegate would out there right now educating people and letting them get used to the idea here.  Don't just pull a Pelosi and insist your opinion is the right one.

    That WILL shock people who believed her to be speaking for the Party rather than her own political interests.

    Parent

    Sigh (none / 0) (#33)
    by Manuel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:10:38 PM EST
    The media seems incapable of presenting anything other than simple arguments.  This isn't limited to politics.  Witness their difficulties when they try to describe NFL playoff scenarios.  That is basicallly what we have here.  They want to distill it to the simple math of pledged delegates but it isn't that simple.

    The elephant in the room is of course the FL and MI situation which they ignore for the most part.

    I am not surprised they want to dismiss PR.  Having dismissed MI and FL, what is 2M more votes?


    Sheer Ivy League classism (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:15:28 PM EST
    not racism, is the reference point for them regarding PR. Hispanics are part of the HRC coalition, therefore working class, therefore expendable in the fanboy media's faculty lounge worldview.

    I hate them with a passion, I do. I admit it.

    For a while now (none / 0) (#73)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:44:41 PM EST
    we've known the popular vote and PR would have a role in this nomination process.  I wondered if people would start laying into PR and complaining, but I didn't think it would happen this soon, or from Todd and KO.  WTF?  

    Parent
    Fuzzy Math (none / 0) (#37)
    by janarchy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:15:53 PM EST
    Thanks for the explanation here -- I just wish more people could/would understand this. What's depressing as hell is that even the fake news shows jumped all over this as gospel last night and are now in the 'she can't possibly win, why won't she quit?' tank too. I've never seen anyone demonized quite in this way before and it's staggering.

    Correction-- the last time I saw this happening was in the 90s. To WJC. The same arrogant vitriol from the Right is now being spewed by the (supposed) Left. I'm glad I found this site. It's like an oasis in a desert of insanity.

    There is a fundamental flaw in the calculations... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:23:27 PM EST
    Everyone keeps calculating what Hillary will need to do to get 2025. What happens in the very real scenario that NEITHER gets to 2025 on the first ballot? Therefore, the discussion needs to be, what does Hillary need to do to block Obama from getting to 2025. That's the name of the game at this point.

    According to CNN's Delegate calculator, if Hillary got 56% of the remaining pledged delegates and 60% of the supers, that would be enough to stop Obama from getting to 2025, with the first ballot being Clinton 2002, Obama 2024.

    Getting 56% in the remaining races is very doable for her and getting 60% of the supers is as well.

    Exeter, my friend, not block---win (none / 0) (#51)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:32:51 PM EST
    It's not about blocking delegates---it's about winning.

    What does Sen. Clinton need to do to get the 2,025 or 2,214 or whatever the number is?

    What does Sen. Obama need to do?

    Not picking on ya. Just think Sen. Clinton can win votes and delegates by people voting for her, rather than against someone else.

    Parent

    Winning is the goal, but my point (none / 0) (#57)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:52:19 PM EST
    is that you have the first ballot. Nobody gets 2025. Then we have a brokered convention, where maybe some of the supers fall toward her, or maybe some of the phony Texas Delegates go for Clinto, or maybe they let Florida and Michigan it at that point.

    Or another way to look at it: Obama needs 45% of the remaining pledged delegates and 40% of the supers to win. Can he do that?

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#62)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16:38 PM EST
    well, pledged delegates are free after the first ballot, so they can wander over to the other camp---or even a third candidate if they want.

    So, what would Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have to offer to get them on their side?

    I think this is where the electability thing will come into play---pure, pragmatic politics.

    Parent

    Right -- I think Clinton get cash in on the second (none / 0) (#63)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:29:18 PM EST
    ballot and win it there.

    Parent
    you missed one more thing. - The will of the peopl (none / 0) (#54)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:38:06 PM EST
    KO: .. and I don't think super delegates are going to override the voters and pick some one who is behind the delegate count because then you JUST can not win come November, because you are going against the will of the same people!

    KO conveniently uses the will of the people and delegate count interchangeably to suit (and insult) his own argument!

    Keith in his own words on David Letterman: Olbermann: Most People In News Are Not Smart Enough For Analysis

    Post PA Thoughts (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:32:13 PM EST
    After the PA vote...Finally I have my TV and radio back. Thank god the "O-bomb-a the airwaves" has left. I have a few thoughts. Barack Obama can not win this state. The white Union workers are gonna go with Clinton in the GE if she wins, OR John McCain. Obama, not so much. That "cling" comment still lingers. I am a MODERATE democrat, and I have only voted for ONE Republican, Arlen Specter. Why? He supports organized labor. He is a MODERATE republican. A lot of these guys WILL vote for McCain. Barack Obama will miss this demographic. David Axelrod did not help BO's cause either with these comments on NPR the day after BO's loss. http://tinyurl.com/4xn62d. OH, PA, NJ, IN, and upstate NY these are white, working class, union-men states. I have heard the chatter and I can't believe it, but the demonization of Hillary Clinton by the latte' liberals and Chuck Todd/Keith Olberman type a-holes are solidifying a core base for Hillary. Bill Clinton is also loved by this demographic, if you also factor in the woman vote, I think it it a no brainer. Bottom line I don't think BO can win in November. The super delegates should consider this!

    I agree (none / 0) (#70)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:40:32 PM EST
    with you.  I don't think Obama can win this state (PA).  If you look at the county by county results, he lost 60+ to 30+ in a bunch of them and got absolutely HAMMERED - 70+ to 20+ in a bunch.  Those people sent a resounding message.

     They don't like him.  Those 'cling' remarks ticked them off.  He has nothing in common with them.

    He won 5 counties I think. Aside from Philadelphia and Harrisburg (large black populations) he pretty much STUNK.

    No, he will not win here.  Guaranteed.

    Parent

    Tonight it's Olbermann and Rachel Maddow ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:31:10 PM EST
    ... repeating a lot of the same spin.

    Then Maddow went on to slap down the voters in the remaining primaries, saying God Bless the voters in IN, NC, ... but the superdelegates are going to decide this and who knows how they will make their decision. She mentioned several possibilities, including that they may even use a ouija board. But the main point was that the remaining contests are irrelevant.

    Maybe someone can find a clip of this condescending commentary, and check my recollection?

    Good post (none / 0) (#74)
    by yourkidding on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:01:19 PM EST
    Why do you refer to Olbermann as a 'journalist'?
    He's a sports writer. No amount of poor imitations of Murrow can hide the fact that Olbermann has fallen into the tank for Obama.  

    Good assessment (none / 0) (#75)
    by IzikLA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:01:29 PM EST
    Although it's like bashing your head picking apart all the mistruths and incompetently delivered information from someone like KO.  Actually, in truth, this is one of the reasons I've been riveted this primary season, watching all the opinions and spinning being delivered as facts to the every day common viewer is like watching a train wreck in progress.

    However, I think it is a tremendous problem.  I think a large part of the country watches these things casually and does not take the energy to put all the inconsistencies together.  Unfortunately, the MI & FL problem and all the idiotic ways the DNC determines the nominee has left a lot of room open for confusion.  If Clinton fails to get the nomination, I will be a firm believer that she lost because of people like this, and that is not a power I wish existed.

    BTD, your assumption is wrong <grin> (none / 0) (#77)
    by LCaution on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:06:53 PM EST
    They are not journalists.  In fact, I think the only journalist on TV is Jon Stewart. The rest are all talking heads who talk to each other and never get out of the bubble.  I'm convinced that every morning, a bunch get together over coffee and decide what today's story or phrase will be.  Then it spreads pretty much at the speed of light.

    I have, quite frankly, decided that there's little difference between these highly paid talkers and the guys down at the neighborhood bar.

    Re the "mathematically impossible" vs. "highly improbable", believe me, if that were the worst of what passes for journalism on TV, I would be ecstatic.

    Jon Stewart (none / 0) (#78)
    by janarchy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:22:02 AM EST
    I thought Stewart and Stephen Colbert were more journalists than most people on either side of the fight...until last night. Then they both parroted the same "Hillary can't possibly win and she has no way of getting the votes so all she can do is do a backroom deal with the Super Delegates" spiel as everyone else last night, pandering to their mostly Obama-loving audiences and garnering great cheers. Jon even had the audacity to make the point that Hillary wants the Dems to be Republicans because she'd said (as many pundits have actually said today) that if the Democratic Primaries were being run like the Republian ones and it was Winner Take All, she'd already have one thanks to the big states.

    Jon said it with a lot of disdain and vitriol. Tonight it was the 'omg, I can't take this any more, why can't they just end it!' meme (presumably by Hillary dropping out). So much for neutrality there too.

    Parent