Is the media really that stupid?

I shouldn't even have to ask that question anymore, because on many accounts, the answer is a resounding yes!

Many journalists and analysts are more fickle than a pet. They just go wherever the wind gusts take them and accept it as so for that moment in time, until the next gust comes along and they have to change their story and attitude entirely.

I've seen/heard this in regard to sports. After Michigan's first game of the regular season this year, many sports' journalists and analysts were calling for 13-year head coach, Lloyd Carr, to be fired. Here's a guy who has won at the school every single year he's been there and even has a national championship on his resume'. Things got worse after the Wolverines' second game, when they were pummeled by Oregon by 32 points, dropping them to 0-2 on the season. Analysts then were claiming that there was absolutely no reason not to fire Carr right then and there. All of his previous victories in Ann Arbor went for not. Michigan then won their next eight games and some claimed that U of M was back! Carr should receive an extension. This may have been his best coaching job yet! But, then they lost their final two games to Wisconsin and Ohio State, en route to a disappointing 8-4 season. After their late struggles, many in the media believed he should be fired at season's end. Others were uncertain. Michigan then capped Carr's career off with a 41-35 upset win over defending national champion Florida in the Capital One Bowl. Rarely did I hear/read of a commentator who was consistent all the way through. It was competely and utterly ridiculous.

That brings me to some recent political commentary. Hillary Clinton was the Democratic front-runner for the past year or so, it seemed. But, following Barack Obama's upset win in the Iowa Caucus, suddenly the media felt that the Clinton era in politics had come to a total halt. But, after her win in New Hampshire, she's the front-runner once again and can't be stopped! Ridiculous.

Many times, it seems that most in the media attempt to blow any story up to make it larger than life, when in reality, it probably shouldn't even be mentioned amongst the other headlines in "today's news." The media has attempted to rationalize Hillary's victory in New Hampshire in any possible manner that they can. First, they told the tale of Hillary's emotional moment a day earlier, where she almost teared up, as being the reason for her monumental comeback. The day of the primary, Clinton's camp had her down 11 points to Senator Obama, while Obama's camp had him up 14 points. What, are they trying to tell me (and others) that a near teary moment for Clinton was responsible for a 13-16 point turn-around in a single day? Give me a break. Every person I've talked to, Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian, have told me they thought her "moment" was staged, calculated, and used as a way to garner support from female voters. Even the woman who evoked that "emotional" response by Hillary voted for Obama in the New Hampshire Primary, because she too was more moved by his speeches than her little "moment," when she seemed to be human again, before divulging her true intent, which was to tell the audience that she was ready for the presidency and Obama isn't. I could see her "moment" earning her 1, 2, maybe 3 points in the primary, but 13-16? Yeah, right... I then read an article today claiming that the reason for Clinton's huge 24 comeback was because her name was listed first on the ballot, showcasing the primacy effect. Studies have indicated this to be true to an extent, but on average, this results in a 1-2% bump for that candidate, again, not 13-16. Then, I've read reports that in many of the hand-held ballot precincts, Barack Obama came out on top and in the electronic voting machine precincts, Hillary was victorious. Chance of voter fraud? Regardless on if it's a conspiracy or not, I think it's a much more likely reason for the miracle win in New Hampshire than a staged emotional episode or the primacy effect on the ballots.

Good news in regard to that potential conspiracy, as Democratic presidential nominee, Dennis Kucinich, has spoken up in regard to a New Hampshire recount. He's raising some money in order to hopefully follow this all the way through. In a way, I hope the tally comes back the same, as I want to have faith in the voting system, especially with the November election not too far away. Yet, at the same time, I hope that there is a different result, so we can explain how Clinton pulled a 13-16 point comeback in 24 hours and so we can somehow edit the faults in the voting system so that it may be closer to perfect by November than it has been previously.