A Short History of the Media Smugly Dismissing Bernie Sanders’ Campaign at Every Step of the Way
http://inthesetimes.com/article/19030/despite-the-medias-constant-dismissal-bernie-sanders-is-still-competing-wit
Except no, it turns out it wasnt, because over the next 11 days, Sanders went on to win six of seven primary contests, including the very not-white states of Hawaii, Alaska and Washington. But presumably because, as people had been told over and over again, the race was over, the media largely ignored this development. Others were more explicitly dismissive. Voxs Matthew Yglesiaswho prior to Sanders upset in Michigan tweeted, Where did the Sanders campaign get this idea that he can win Michigan?posted an article headlined: Bernie Sanders just won landslides in 3 diverse states. He's still toast.
By my count, from the announcement of Sanders campaign to today, this marks at least six distinct times that media commentators have declared the Sanders campaign dead in the water. Despite being repeatedly proved wrong, pundits have continued to confidently assert predictions as fact and what appears to at times be little more than gut instinct as gospel.
What is the point of such predictive horse-race punditry? What, if any, value does it add to the national political conversation? Given that forecasts have been consistently wrong, and discounting the fact that they serve as fodder for writers like myself, could journalistic resources not be better put to use for somethinganythingelse?
This isnt just an issue when it comes to the Sanders campaign. Much has been written about the medias similarly repeated dismissals of Trump, who has been declared to have no shot at the presidency at least as many times asif not more thanSanders, most recently due to his poor standing among women in national polls. Yet the election is still a whole seven months away, and a lot can change in that time. It seems to me that for the most part, we have very little to gain, and much to lose, from such predictive journalism.