This is a piece from the New Yorker just before the election, last week, that is an example of the disservice many political reporters do to our political culture.
By Benjamin Wallace-Wells, it claims to tell us why GOP "insiders" believe there will be a "blowout."
From the piece:
"'There isn’t a single private poll in America that has Herschel Walker anything but ahead,” the Republican consultant told me. 'Not one.'"
it's a lot more like that:
"The consensus...of G.O.P. pollsters & operatives I spoke to this week is that in the Senate races that are thought to be competitive, Republican candidates are heading for a clean sweep:..Oz will beat Fetterman in PA, and not just by a point or two"
What is the point of pieces like this? Why do we need to know what Republican strategists privately claim -- but won't say on the record -- about the election?
Shouldn't the journalist then refute or confirm what they're saying -- with data, all of which was available?
Wallace-Wells was used, willingly, to push a narrative useful to the GOP. He would likely say, no, I was just trying to explain "why" they believe this. But it's irresponsible to publish this kind of piece without any critical analysis. @[email protected]
@msignorile yes, and more generally, far too many poltiical reporters are acting like glorified sports reporters in focusing on “horse race” coverage to the near-exclusion of everything else.
I’ve decried for years the increasing treatment of politics as a sport both by the media and the public. Self-governance isn’t a game with competing teams.
Michelangelo Signorile
J. Stephen Clark 🏳️🌈