Here I described the effects of a bored press, namely the hyping of minor stories about presidential candidates. Here is a good example from a Clinton event apparently gone bad:
Hillary Clinton was forced to cut her normal stump speech short when a chatty and meddlesome crowd kept her from grasping their attention. Clinton, who was addressing the Philadelphia County Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, spoke for just over five minutes, despite having the press arrive almost two hours beforehand. (snip)
Whether or not Clinton’s reception at the dinner had anything to do with her recent attacks on Barack Obama remains unclear.
Let us ponder the sentence, "Whether or not Clinton’s reception at the dinner had anything to do with her recent attacks on Barack Obama remains unclear." What this reporter is saying, in a news story mind you, is that there really is no evidence that there is a connection between this poor reception of Clinton and anything she might have said about Obama. Yet he feels compelled to invent conflict where there is no evidence for it. By even raising the issue he implies, absent any evidence, that there actually is reason to think that these two phenomena may be connected. Why does he do this? I guess that's what sells newspapers, or rather what generates internet hits.
Recent Comments