The Christian Science Monitor is wrong
Duncan Riley> Another day and another piece of US Election analysis, this time from the Christian Science Monitor. Whilst the article does not revolve around blogging, mention is made of the exit-poll issue and that bloggers were the ones to publish the figures. And then this extraordinary statement
“To their credit, the major television networks mostly avoided jumping on that ride. They adopted practices intended to avoid the mistakes of 2000. Needed restraint, rather than a “beat the competition” mentality, was the order of the day/evening.”
Restraint? Practices to avoid the mistakes of 2000?
How is a conspiracy to withhold news worthy of credit?
That the exit-poll figures where not an accurate reflection of voter intent is not disputed. That the figures published by bloggers were the figures recorded by the exit polls is accurate. Bloggers rightfully published figures gathered by exit-polls whilst many in the mainstream media colluded and conspired to withhold legitimate news.
They then try to justify their stance:
“It’s important for the public to understand that exit polls are not scientific. They are meant to help inform news coverage, not to be broadly disseminated to the public.”
Yes, they are not scientific, but who decided that they should not be disseminated to the public? Is the CSMonitor arguing that they should be withheld because the “public” are too stupid to make up their own minds?
The defence of this conspiracy by the Christian Science Monitor can only be indicative of their support for the conspiracy and perhaps reflective of their own beliefs in relation to freedom of the press. Their justification of public stupidity insults many on both sides of politics and is reflective of a “we know what’s best” attitude that is turning people away from mainstream media and towards mediums such as blogs. If this is the attitude taken by the Christian Science Monitor then they will not only today stand condemned, but they may soon find their readership diminished as well.