BalzBlog

I've been having some personal problems, rendering me unable to post. However, do not worry - posts will continues daily-ish from now on.

Gotta admit...article wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. He focused largely on exit polling data at the end, rather than the punditry. Good.

Gotta admit...article wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. He focused largely on exit polling data at the end, rather than the punditry. Good for him.

Point 15 of the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics (thanks fact-esque)is:

Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

Finally with his own by-line, Dan Balz is once again making up his own standards for the candidates, this time for the February 3rd states. This sort of analysis should be saved for the op-ed pages, or at least clearly labeled as such. The Balzian expectations/challenges are:

• Kerry must win Southern States to prove he can win them in November
• Every candidate must win a February 3rd state to remain viable
• For those candidates who did not win either of the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire [Read: Everyone But Kerry], Feb. 3 may offer one last chance to revive their candidacies"
• A Dean loss in New Hampshire may sink his candidacy
• Lieberman needs to reassess his chances if he loses NH

This is not journalism. This is the job of the punditry. He forgets that his readers rely on him as an objective source of information about the next Democratic Nominee. Most people don't have the time or desire to do more research than reading the newspaper. However, Balz appears to be resorting to his base instincts. Rather than writing about what actually matters [Read: Issues], he takes the easy route out and decides to set expectations. That is the right of voters, not reporters.

Stay tuned 'till tomorrow, when we focus on who beat Dan's NH expectations, and who didn't.

Esther Riley's letter to the editor in today's WaPo makes an excellent point about the equal time (or lack thereof) given to the various candidates. Kudos.

Esther Riley's letter to the editor in today's WaPo makes an excellent point about the equal time (or lack thereof) given to the various candidates. Kudos to you.

A recently posted article, co-written by William Branigin and John F. Harris, mainly focuses on Dean, with mentions of Clark and Kerry events. It appears that Balz is talking more about dirty tricks, this time in the way of anonymous emails and faxes. It would be helpful for them to mention the commonality of these sorts of things.

Howard "Walking Conflict of Interest" Kurtz appears to be starting a Kerry's-Getting-the-Easy-Treatment Meme. I'm reminded of all the Dean's-Getting-the-Easy-Treatment stories around last September. I think we all know how that ended working out. Now it's time to wonder how much Kerry will get Gored, assuming he's the frontrunner long enough for the media to get a hold of him.

Dan Balz and Paul Schwartzman, along with contributions from David S. Broder, Paul Farhi, Jonathan Finer and Vanessa Williams wrote another hodgepodge about last-minute campaign events. For a different take on some of the mentioned events, take a glance at Josh Marshall. My big beef is the first paragraph,

"The Democratic presidential candidates called in all available reinforcements Sunday as the campaigning for Tuesday's New Hampshire primary entered its frantic final hours."

The candidates did not call in all available reinforcements, as their staff currently in states with later primaries stayed there. That is in direct contrast to the mryiad of staffers who went to Iowa as the caucus drew near. It would be fair to say they had surrogates and endorsers in the state, but that's not what was said.

I also have a beef with this out-of-context quote: "[Dean] added that the war had serious consequences for the Iraqi people, including the loss of many lives and a living standard that 'is lot worse now' than it was." Problem is, Dean was referring to dead Iraqis, not Iraqis in general. He also says that Dean was attempting to specifically court female voters, without ever explaining how. I also don't like the lack of equal time found in this paragraph buried at the end:

Outside the Hullabaloo Coffee Shop in Claremont, Dean supporters passed out video cassettes of the Deans' interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer on Thursday while Edwards was speaking inside.

This is an unusual passage. I went to New Hampshire this weekend, and found that this sort of thing is very common. A Dean volunteer I spoke to said that one of Clark's bodymen attempted to convince him to switch to the General's side. An Edwards supporter was putting fliers on cars at a Dean rally. Odd that he only mentioned Dean supporters doing this, rather than acknowledging all the campaigns have been doing these sorts of things.

Operation Fix Computer has been a success, although I appear to have missed chances to be in news articles at wired and NPR. Journalists, feel free make my mom a happy woman and give me a mention. Now back to posting. Rather than reposting Mr. Balz's articles over the past week, I'm just going to over-generalize the two big memes that have come and gone recently. First:

Dean's "Scream Speech" is the end of his campaign.

This sort of Media Speculation is bad for a number of reasons. It focuses the coverage on process, rather than issues. It often causes self-fulfilling prophecies. It is impossible to predict the future. Mr. Balz mentioned it (logically) but not with the venom many other journalists did. Kudos. Also:

Dean's Debate Performance Will Make or Break His Campaign.

Again, this is wrong. I can count on one hand the number of times that a single event made or lost a Presidential Campaign (Nixon Debates, Muskie Crying and the Mondale-Regan Debates come to mind.) Although important, it would be unfathomable to assume that the debate was his only chance. It does add a deal of drama, the reason that it the media attempted to build it up,but does not jive well with the facts.

Some computer problems...expect sparse posts for the time being...hopefully all will be fixed soon.

Some computer problems...expect sparse posts for the time being.

Dan Balz is starting (along with contributions from David Broder) the anybody's-race meme, meaning that the Bash-Dean movement has been a success, from the Media's point of view. We now have plenty of drama, and a race that could last until the Convention. I can almost hear the glee in the first two paragraphs:

Iowa Democrats dealt a serious blow to the once front-running campaign of Howard Dean here Monday night and to predictions that the Democratic presidential race might end as quickly as it began.

With the big victory of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the party faces an open and potentially protracted contest to find a nominee to challenge President Bush in the fall.

He also began to make a mention of a Dean-Can't-Lose-NH theme, as he claims Dean needs to take first to remain viable. We'll be seeing alot of that in the next week, a la Gephardt-Can't-Lose-IA theme. Speaking of 'ole Gep, Balz almost ignores his imminent withdrawl from the race (one short paragraph.) Anywho, My prediction is the Media will be spinning this as Dean/Clark/Kerry/Edwards as the frontrunners, with Lieberman having an outside chance.

Dan Balz is starting (along with contributions from David Broder) the anybody's-race meme, meaning that the Bash-Dean movement has been a success, from the Media's point of view. We now have plenty of drama, and a race that could last until the Convention. I can almost hear the glee in the first two paragraphs:

Iowa Democrats dealt a serious blow to the once front-running campaign of Howard Dean here Monday night and to predictions that the Democratic presidential race might end as quickly as it began.

With the big victory of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the party faces an open and potentially protracted contest to find a nominee to challenge President Bush in the fall.

He also began to make a mention of a Dean-Can't-Lose-NH theme, as he claims Dean needs to take first to remain viable. We'll be seeing alot of that in the next week, a la Gephardt-Can't-Lose-IA theme. Speaking of 'ole Gep, Balz almost ignores his imminent withdrawl from the race (one short paragraph.)

Many articles written, due to the end of the Iowa Caucuses. First, a pre-Cacusus Logistics Article. Strangely, he references ABC's The Note on the "organization v. momentum" argument, when every pundit in the country was saying the same thing.

He also participated in an online discussion. He predicted Kerry's organization was better than people expected (props,) and appeared to imply that they would do well. I disagree with his analysis of Bush's current popularity, as recent polling (which he said he read) is not positive for the President. He strangely takes into account the positive effect of the Iran hostage situation on Carter's approval rating, yet ignores the Saddam factor temporarily helping Bush, which just goes to help prove my unique theory: The Media Loves Bush.