The punditry disconnect continues on primary night

[DeepModem Mom]

AP: The punditry disconnect continues on primary night
By DAVID BAUDER

NEW YORK (AP) — Television's news networks brought all of their punditry and electronic firepower to the Democratic presidential primary coverage on Tuesday, but left viewers yearning for the simplest of things. Say, a reporter with a microphone who could walk into a bar in rural Kentucky and ask some voters what was on their minds. The night of political water-treading — commentators who had already declared the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton race over were declaring it again after the Kentucky and Oregon primaries — did little to repair the campaign's punditry disconnect....

Clinton's victory in Kentucky was massive, a "severe drubbing" in Fox News Channel anchor Brit Hume's estimation, and exit polls showed the clear problem Obama had in attracting the votes of working class, white Democrats....When they addressed the subject, TV talkers spent much of their time debating whether this could change for the general election. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and Harold Ford theorized that Obama had spent little time courting these voters, and offered suggestions on how to do it.

What was missing was any real attempt by the networks to find out directly from these voters what their misgivings were, and why they came to the polls to express those feelings despite being told that the nomination fight was essentially done. "Some have said the campaign is over, your votes don't matter," Clinton told a Kentucky rally, in a part of her speech Tuesday that drew one of the strongest responses from the audience. "You know our political process is about more than candidates running or the pundits chattering."

Fox News cut away from her speech before its end to return to commentating.

"I'm not sure who that works with," Matthews said of Clinton's reasoning.

Clinton had used the faces of Matthews and NBC News' Keith Olbermann and Tim Russert this past week in an Oregon ad chiding the media for obsessing about the political horse race. Commentators also have been second-guessed for essentially writing off John McCain last year and nearly burying Clinton after her January loss in Iowa. Because of his prominence, Russert's declaration after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries that Obama was now the Democratic nominee was seen as a pivotal moment in the media closing the window on Clinton's candidacy....

CNN's Gloria Borger likened Clinton's chances to those of a meteor falling out of the sky. Her colleague, Jeffrey Toobin, said he found it interesting that Clinton's poll numbers hadn't diminished despite so much media talk that the race had been decided.

"People want to vote," he said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iBqfRBlZdTt-vvbFqTibWUdTGCbAD90PRPO00

[dorktv]

1. It is interesting. The pundits and exit polls say one thing

but how about some in depth discussion?

[DeepModem Mom]

2. I agree. I hadn't thought until this piece what might be lost in election coverage...

centered on electronic gadgetry, numbers, and Beltway/NYC pundits (some of whom aren't even expert in politics, but in other areas). I wouldn't eliminate all that, but maybe rethink some things. I remember during the Iowa caucus coverage, for example, that the longtime political writer for the Des Moines Register (can't remember his name at the moment) provided commentary that seemed right on. Maybe coverage could include more local reporters who are closer to the people and politics in the state involved. Local pols are valuable, too, but they often have their own agenda, or are backing a particular candidate.