You probably qualify as both a nerd and a wonk if you're sitting up in bed at 1 a.m. constantly reloading state board of election Web sites on your laptop to get the latest vote totals, but that's what I was doing last night to keep tabs on the close election races, and if that makes me a nerd and a wonk, so be it.
But it also makes me a frustrated news consumer. I had to go to the source for up-to-the-minute results in the close Senate races in Missouri, Montana and Virginia because I wasn't really getting the latest data (or analysis) from the media, either broadcast or online.
As those three critical Senate races went down to the wire—not to mention a couple of House races I was following—the traditional coverage got worse and worse. Maybe everybody on TV and at newspaper web sites was exhausted after a long night, or figured that nobody who cared could possibly still be awake (wrong!). But it seems rather amazing that the news outlets didn't do something as simple as refer their viewers and readers to the constantly updated election tallies that the states were posting online.
Remember, media folks, you don't have to be—and can't be—the only source of information out there. Tell your readers and viewers how to find better resources and information online if you don't have it. They'll appreciate it. I fear that the reluctance to do this is rooted in the hoary belief that readers who find a better source of information elsewhere won't come back. No, they'll leave and won't come back if you give them NO options. If you help them by pointing to good stuff, they'll return to you in appreciation.
Actually, most of the best election coverage I saw all night was on partisan blogs like DailyKos (that's where I found the links to the up-to-the-minute state results, too). Yeah, a lot of it was biased cheerleading and whining, but there there were a lot of good nuggets of information and analysis in the hundreds of posts on those sites from "real" people (as opposed to media or political pros). DailyKos readers, for instance, explained why the Green Party candidate in Virginia was actually a conservative (cutting into George Allen's vote totals) rather than a liberal (hurting Jim Webb)—a distinction I heard CNN's Jeff Greenfield get completely wrong hours after it had been explained online.
None of these online resources, of course, were available a few years ago, and they've improved greatly since the last major election. The traditional media coverage, on the other hand, hasn't changed much. This is another example of how new media is outstripping old media. Because of this, I believe we're going to see a major change in how the 2008 election is fought and covered. And maybe then I won't have scrounge around the Web in my jammies to find out what's going on in a tight race.
And what the heck were those weird red and blue "meters" on CNN, with the little measuring doo-hickey in the middle? It all did seem bizarre to me -- more news sources than ever, per you, but not enough understandable news!
And congrats on your blog, btw.
Posted by: Stephanie | November 09, 2006 at 08:41 AM