Tuned In, TV Blog, Television Reviews, James Poniewozik, TIME

February 5, 2008 11:33

Pundit, Predict Thyself

Posted by James Poniewozik | Comments (10) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

It's finally Super Tuesday, and the pundits are all abuzz about what the voters will decide to do. You'd expect that. But the pundits are also abuzz about what they will decide to do.

I saw an interesting exchange yesterday on MSNBC, among Dan Abrams, MSNBC political director Chuck Todd, and Newsweek's Howard Fineman. The three were talking about how, particularly on the Democratic side, with neither Obama nor Clinton mathematically able to sew up the nomination, how will the media determine a winner?

Because you can't not declare a winner! This is TV! You gotta have a winner! That other guy on that other channel's calling a winner! Who's the winner, damn it?

Anyway, Todd and Fineman noted that there are many ways people could interpret "victory" that night. There's victory in terms of expectations. (Expectations being assiduously pre-spun by the campaigns.) There's the number of delegates--to the extent you can count them. There's the popular vote. There's the absolute number of states won. Each campaign can, and likely will, declare victory on any combination of these.

But the most interesting observation Todd and Fineman made is that a lot will depend on the psychology of the media, and the tone of commentary that night. For instance, Fineman pointed out, it's the East Coast states that will be most likely to have results before viewers go to bed and before newspapers print up early editions. Will they have a disproportionaste effect? Will they drive the momentum of the punditry, since commentators will be chewing over their results in primetime?

Even more significant: what about the map? Say the delegate haul is fairly even between Obama and Clinton, but one wins a lot more states numerically. Will that just look more like a win on a graphic level? What if one candidate wins the states with greater land mass? You think I'm joking, but Fineman noted--I'm paraphrasing--that all the networks will be coloring in maps tonight, and those will affect the psychology not just of the viewers but of the commentators.

In other words, one of the biggest pundits facing the pundits is how they themselves will react tonight--how they'll get carried away, whether the heat of the moment will cause them to exaggerate the impact of the result--even if it's a result they thought was likely to begin with.

It sounds bizarre, or like some weird thought experiment. But it's a good point, and a very important factor in this election--the runaway psychology of punditry. Before Iowa, after all, it's not as if pundits didn't know Obama was likely to win the caucuses. But he did, somewhat on the upper range of expectations, then he made a speech--and suddenly the boulder was rolling downhill. Then Hillary won New Hampshire--defying the previous week's polls, but by more or less the same margin you'd have predicted a week earlier--and it was exactly the opposite.

There is something weird going on in the political media today: the amount of instant analysis and the pressure to draw dramatic conclusions means that, repeatedly, the pundit class ends up getting caught in the heat of the moment and getting overexcited even about things they already knew would happen. Obama wins South Carolina: crushing victory! Hillary makes a victory speech in Florida: momentum shift! There's a built-in bias toward the most exciting conclusion, whatever it is. And that, in turn, is affecting the course of the actual campaign.

Campaigns are wild, unpredictable things, all right. But it's not the voters who are volatile. It's the pundits.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

Reader Comments (10)

carlos_the_dwarf:

Hey james this is unrelated but i didn't know where else to post it-
have you heard about this?

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/02/ben-silverman-is-not-optimistic-about-friday-night-lights.php?loc=interstitialskip

Is radar a reputable site? They seemed almost as interested in what he was wearing as what he said. Also don't tell chaddog.

Posted by carlos_the_dwarf | February 5, 2008 12:03 PM

Keith:

They could just do what talk radio has done for the last week and call McCain a dirty, rotten liberal to the left of Hillary and declare Romney as the second coming of Reagan.

Of course if McCain wins, they will all head to the bunker with a pistol in their hand.

Posted by Keith | February 5, 2008 12:04 PM

That Anonymous Dude:

"There is something weird going on in the political media today: the amount of instant analysis "

Key point right there - analysis that is instant is not, um, analysis. Especially from a bobble-head (or from the teleprompter said bobble-head is reading). It's an emotive gut comment which with $2 gets me a ride on the subway...

I find the most satisfactory way to watch the results is to not watch tv but to bring up the cnn vote tally page while idling time on computer playing games and just refresh periodically to get latest raw info on vote %. And then, like, draw your own conclusions..

Current election coverage makes me think we might be better off with communication at the speed of pony express...

Posted by That Anonymous Dude | February 5, 2008 12:06 PM

James Poniewozik:

@carlos: I saw that quote too. Radar's reputable enough that I assume it's what he actually said. But it doesn't mean the show's fate is settled--these things always depend on what other options the network has. (Actually his comment makes me more nervous for 30 Rock, but NBC would be crazy to cancel it.)

Posted by James Poniewozik | February 5, 2008 12:18 PM

shara says:

I just want the primaries to be over. Part me me doesn't care whether the democratic nomination goes to Obama or Hilary. I liked Kucinich and am frustrated with two establishment candidates that don't represent my views. However, I don't think that Hilary can beat McCain, while I think Obama has a chance. And I have a feeling that the Republican nom will go to McCain. So I guess I'll vote for Obama. Cause we don't need 4-8 more years of Republicans in charge. I just wish that I felt like I could trust the Democrats further than I could throw any of them.

As I've said before, I cannot and willnot listen to the pundits discuss the race. The level to which media bobbleheads are able to influence public opinion through their knee-jerk commentary is upsetting. Talking heads with running mouths do not political discourse make.

Posted by shara says | February 5, 2008 12:29 PM

Ashley:

I hope this doesn't count as spam, but this posting from mental_floss is the best bit of Super Tuesday related mass hysteria that I've seen yet today:

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/11930

*giggle*

That being said I'd like a McCain/Huckabee ticket for aught-eight, please! :)

Posted by Ashley | February 5, 2008 12:33 PM

Chaddogg:

I don't mind the punditry, but I think there is a difference between GOOD punditry work (helping viewers understand the results, the support bases of the candidates and what issues supporters felt were important) and BAD punditry (the ongoing discussions about talk radio and McCain, the spin on expectations, etc.)

The most helpful things I've seen this election cycle? On CNN (disclosure made on behalf of James: Time and CNN are both owned by Time-Warner), one of the political pundits during South Carolina and Florida was doing district by district breakdowns of HOW the voters had voted. In a delegate battle (as we seem to clearly be in, at least on the Democrats' side), this is PERFECT analysis - what is going on at the ground level, where geographically candidates are garnering support, etc. I'd like to see a LOT more of this, from ALL networks.

One other thing - can we just BAN all candidate supporters/surrogates tonight? No one cares what they have to say: we KNOW they'll spin everything in their candidates' favor. Just skip the exercise, and keep the analysis with the (more) impartial (albeit not entirely impartial) journalists.

(@carlos - WHAT THE HECK WAS THAT?? I agree 30 Rock needs viewers, but GOOD LORD! Save FNL!)

Posted by Chaddogg | February 5, 2008 12:46 PM

Chaddogg:

In the "when God closes a door, he opens a window file" after reading carlos's tip that FNL may be done for....:

E! Online's Kristin Dos Santos is reporting that Jason Bateman and Jeffrey Tambor (as well as other candidates) have been approached about a potential "Arrested Development" movie, that would go into production/development after the strike was over.

I honestly have no idea whether I'm A) more depressed by FNL's potential cancellation, or B) more excited about the Bluths potentially reuniting (Save Our Bluths!)

Posted by Chaddogg | February 5, 2008 1:43 PM

Karma:

AD movie has to happen. IT HAS TO HAPPEN. James, you have power, call some people.

Posted by Karma | February 5, 2008 3:40 PM

an93:

I've been reading this blog for a good year now but have never commented, however we need to save 30 Rock and get the AD movie of the ground. I'm with Karma, make some calls James.

Posted by an93 | February 5, 2008 5:03 PM

About Tuned In

James Poniewozik writes TIME magazine's Tuned In column, about pop culture and society. Tuned In, the blog version, is about the stuff we used to call "TV," whether it's in your living room, on your computer or--once the networks figure out the technology and line up the advertisers--in your dreams themselves.