I went back to the New York Times results page and clicked on a few things that we didn't look at in class. One of these things was the Scenarios tab. I posted a picture below for convenience.
Despite the media's efforts to make this race seem close, Obama had a clear advantage. All Obama had to do was win two other the listed states, and he won. Furthermore, Obama had over 5 times as many ways to win as Romney did. There is a very clear difference between the likeliness of the outcomes. This was no where close. Yet numerous sources tried to convince us that either could win. Why? Probably to keep us interested in what they were saying.
I don't think that this type of behavior is appropriate. While some people would be able to distinguish between facts and fabrication, most others can't. I would like to believe that news sources are being honest and providing facts. However, this clearly isn't always the case.
Enough of my opinion, what do you think? Should news sources be able to skew results? Post your thoughts in the comments below.
Sean, I think it is almost comical that we see the media blowing elections out of proportion. Isn't the media's job to give the people a clear unbiased view of our representatives? The media has been skewed politically. Just look at your graphic. Clearly, Obama had an edge but the media portrayed it as a "coin flip". I wish the media would be more honest and worry about the truth, not ratings.
ReplyDelete