There is a story in the NY Post by Brendan Scott that bothers me. It isn’t just Scott though, it is a way of writing stories that bothers me across all journalism.

So the idea behind the story is that Clinton’s debate performance “could” cost her in New Hampshire & Iowa and elsewhere. The headline is “HILL’S FLIP-FLOPS STUBBING HER TOES
WAFFLING ON LICENSE ISSUE COULD COST HER: EXPERTS”, which they printed with the caps.

Now the article itself says, at the very end, Clinton’s poll numbers have actually gone up since the debate. Which is the first problem. But OK, the story is that the performance “might” hurt her. Great, fine, Rudy Giuliani might fly to the moon. Anything is possible.

But the first quote in the article is: “It just adds to the image she has of being very calculating politically and trying to play the middle on various issues,” said Iowa Democrat”. Which sounds like a really damning reaction. The problem? The quote comes from John Norris whom the article says is “a supporter of Barack Obama”.

Do you see my problem?

Are we as a reader given anything by knowing that someone who already plans on voting against her will continue to find reason not to vote for her? Wouldn’t it be more interesting if say, a Hillary supporter said that or at the very least an independent? That right there would add more weight to the thrust behind the story.

Now like I said it isn’t just this article or this issue. I see this all the time with reporting in newspapers, the net and on television. It is a lazy way of bulking up an article that has no real basis in reality with something that seems substantive but really isn’t.

The story could have easily been about John McCain’s war stance. They could have gone to a Ron Paul supporter and said “do you think John McCain’s support for the war will hurt him and help Ron Paul?” Guess what answer they will give. “Yes, of course!”

They do the same with interest groups in the media as well. “For more reaction on the president’s speech, let’s go to the leader of ‘I hate George Bush and the War’. So tell me, were you convinced by what the president said tonight?”

Don’t get me wrong, it would be wonderfully captivating television if the answer was yes. If the leader of an anti-war group said “Yes Chris Matthews or any other host, the speech made all the difference to me. I get it now, wow my life was a waste. In fact, I am going to join up with the army right now. Do you know where the closest recruiting center is?”

Is that going to happen? No, because they are there representing a cause and when you are fighting for a cause or a candidate you can turn anything, negative or positive into a win for your side. It is an extension of having candidates on television AFTER a debate and having them tell the audience how they think they performed. What are they going to say “Wow, I really blew that”?

So the article I mentioned above quotes three people. One is an Obama supporter and two are professors of political science. The professors give us wonderful insight like “”She doesn’t want to give a response that’s going to bother anybody”. How else do you get elected? Burn down a church and denounce the constitution.

These “experts” as the article’s title calls them provided no polling, no data, they did not even offer historic examples. Just that, which is a whole lot of nothing.

The article has no evidence and no sources of real authority on the subject. It negates its own point in the end and basically only does one thing. It shows us that an Obama supporter, supports Obama.

Thanks, I guess.