Reply #26: You are very generous. [View All]

[Iverson]

Generally, it's a good idea not to attribute to malice what could be explained by stupidity.

In the case of the news media, we must wonder, since they usually aren't stupid. They not only present the news in a certain way but also are the gatekeepers of what gets to be reported as news at all.

Here's what I immediately take into account when I learn of a story like this one.
- the stunning concentration of media ownership over the last generation;
- recent examples of the media's political behavior;
- the way in which they covered, or didn't cover, electoral fraud in 2000;
- the marginalizing of candidates in this election cycle, through lack of coverage and dismissive coverage of various sorts.

One would think that after 2000, the news media would be sensitized to basic issues of democracy, such as voting rights. Perhaps they are, but not in such ways that it would actually influence their behavior (see: NYT cheering the coup in Venezuela).

Given that this story is national in scope, it has the greatest domestic audience. With more eyes upon them, an honest mistake is less likely to occur. However, the political agenda will always remain intact. That is why I cannot be as generous as you. I doubt that they work on multiple stories for various possible outcomes for a primary. If they had the manpower and the diligence to do that, then surely they'd have the staff to prevent errors of fact from being distributed nationally.