More stupid reporting from the NYPost. - The art of writing a non-story

[Mass]

A couple of days ago, Kerry had a breakfast with some trial lawyers who are supporting an 08 race for the White House. Here is the NYPost reporting on this event. I still cannot figure what is the point of this article

KERRY PLAYS IT COOL FOR DEMS

SEN. JOHN Kerry didn't have nice things to say about Sen. Hillary Clinton or his former running mate, John Edwards, on Tuesday night. But he didn't say anything bad about them either, according to witnesses

I do not know why he should have something nice to say about Hillary or Edwards these days, but anyway, this is pretty much a non story, as he did not say anything bad either. Is the NYPost that much out of news that he has to report about what Kerry did not say.

According to a source who knows one of the attendees, Kerry started off by asking guests if he should run or not: "When no one answered, he launched into a speech about why he was the best candidate."
But four guests interviewed by Page Six denied that source's claim that Kerry went negative on Clinton and Edwards. The dinner guests swear Kerry never even mentioned his potential rivals for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

So, it is one person who was not there vs 4 who were there. Whao! I did not know that the standards of the NYPost were so low. Even after they have had multiple confirmations from people who were actually in the room, they continue to write about something which did not happen?

Another bit of non-news: the two polls that show Kerry low in vote intentions for 2008 (non posting the results, too depressing, but here is the URL.


Even without considering the discrepencies between the two polls (Edwards is in single digits in one, but is second in the other one) or the fact that Obama does not seem to make progress in this poll, I think that Kerry's numbers are pretty much representative of where he is now. Between the joke, the fact that people are piling on the "already ran" idea, and the fact that people do not really hear what he has to say (except for the series of interviews we heard recently, but which were made after the polls and which were pretty much on only one subject, it would take a miracle for him to be high in the polls at a time where most people do not yet care about the 08 elections. About numbers and survey, read the excellent post by Mark Barrett at the Premise.

Premise Review of the Week: John Kerry’s Negatives

Remember the Quinnipiac ‘thermometer’ poll that showed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama skipping off to the White House, with John Kerry left for dead? I didn’t comment on that poll for quite a while because I know such things are meaningless. And not in the I-don’t-want-to-hear-it sense, but in the literal sense: they mean nothing.

[cadmium]

1. JK is right not to be critical of other democrats except

Liebermann. They are reaching.

[wisteria]

4. I'll do that for him!

IMO, he has a right to ridicule them both, but now is not the time to take them on.

[whometense]

5. It's not his style, anyway.

Never has been. He's even still referring to McCain as his "friend", though I'd bet in private he calls him a few other things.

He'd never do that - it is just not him.

[wisteria]

7. I know, I just don't know how he does it.

I could never be that kind to the likes of those that attacked him recently. I am not that forgiving.

[whometense]

14. I'm not, either,

to be perfectly honest.

Every time I hear him refer to McCain as his friend I grit my teeth. But I also smile in admiration. :-)

[blm]

2. There was never a claim he made remarks about others, just the writer's spin, when everyone there

says other names were never even mentioned.

Typical Rupert technique - pretend there's a controversy where there is none, and oh, by thw way, let's lie and make poor Hillary Kerry's victim.

[Dr Ron]

8. Not that we expect real journalism

Someone not present claims somehting was said. Nobody who was there confirms it. I would think that normal journalistic standards would be to ignore the unsubstantiated source, especially considering that even if Kerry had criticized one of the others it wouldn't be that earth shattering a piece of news.

Just another example that journalsitic standards do not exist at some publications.

[rox63]

3. But if they simply printed

that Kerry met with some lawyers about support for his possible '08 run, no one would much care. They have to add some faux-controversy, with the "didn't have nice things to say" comment. Can't they find some real news to report?

[wisteria]

6. IMO, this article is making news out of the possibility that he is still considering a run.

After all, the media and the Washington insiders thought they did him in and are trying their hardest to pronounced him DOA. Oh, and why not bring up Clinton- who attacked his comments as inappropriate and Edward's who along with his wife have been commenting negatively about Teresa and the Senator. Rivals both.
Gossip, Gossip,Gossip, to stir up a little nasty comment or two from someone somewhere against Kerry.

[beachmom]

9. Agreed. The real news is that he still is contemplating a run.

And they want the MSM and other naysayers to get out the knives again.

[ProSense]

10. The article is garbage!

Are we supposed to take the NY Post seriously?

[wisteria]

13. They are right up their with the National Inquire and the World Globe.

Isn't this the paper associated with Murdock of Fox fame? The paper seems to have an interest in defending IMO and promoting Hillary and Republican positions.

[Island Blue]

11. I know a guy who knows a guy who talked to a dude

who knows someone who didn't hear John Kerry say ... Journalism at its finest. :crazy:

[karynnj]

12. Even the one source there does not say he mentioned

any potential other candidates. It simply says Kerry made the case for why he was the best choice. This could be done speaking only of his own merits - and minimizing the lame excuses given as reasons he can't win. So I guess the worst things they have is no one urged him to run and he was speaking to trial lawyers.

So - the writer had absolutely NO source to say Kerry said anything about Hillary or Edwards. (In fact what it shows is that they are dying to get a juicy Kerry quote that disses either one - and it's lucky that simply isn't his style. If he hasn't slammed McCain after all attacks - even immediately after the latest one Kerry simply quietly said McCain knew him better than that.)

But this is the NY Post, they had a huge story on the Elizabeth Edwards / Hillary "fight" leading to Edwards apologizing.

[wisteria]

15. Great guy, that Mark Barrett.

I like the way he thinks. One question, I know how he can to the 12-13% to lop off, I just don't understand the logic behind lopping it off. Is is what he considers the temporary residual from the botched joke? I am not a poll expert.

[kerrygoddess]

16. It's their gossip page

So they gossiped. It's up there with celebrity gossip, like Lindsey Lohan's drunken emails. Take the gossipy part out and it's a piece about JK having a dinner with friends who support him running again.

[JI7]

20. yeah, but there is nothing there to gossip about

i could understand if they were gossiping about something that had actually happened. but they are making something out of nothing.

[kerrygoddess]

21. That's what people do when they gossip...

They make something out of nothing. And that's how gossip columnists write purposely so people will read their column.

[kerrygoddess]

17. Spinning gossip

Take the good out the gossipy tripe and he's a different look at the dinner at JK's Georgetown townhouse - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4917

[wisteria]

18. Very nice.

And you use named sources. I like this kind of gossip.

[karynnj]

19. Your story is so much better.

[globalvillage]

22. No matter how stupid the story

Someone is bound to pick out pieces to suit their purpose.

:eyes:

http://www.politicaldogfight.com/dogfight04/2006/12/silence_greets_.html#comments

[kerrygoddess]

23. He's a

Clark supporter. I know him - I responded.