As we’ve said plenty of times before, one of the main jobs of campaign journalists is winnowing the field of candidates– which must come as a relief to voters who don’t want to have more of a say in the process.
Before the results of the Iowa straw poll rolled in this weekend, there were pieces about whether anyone should pay attention to the event in the first place. Most reporters are willing to admit that paying so much attention to an elaborate popularity contest where the candidates pay voters to participate is a little odd.
The lesson for readers comes afterwards, though–when reporters nevertheless assign meaning to the event.
The main takeaway from this weekend seems to be that we now have a “top tier” of Republican candidates. “GOP now has ‘three-person race’ after poll,” says USA Today. “Top tier puts GOP contest in focus,” says a Washington Post headline.
So the “top tier”– i.e., the candidates we’re supposed to actually pay attention t0– consists of the straw poll winner– who most observers believe has almost no chance of actually winning the nomination– plus two candidates who didn’t participate in the contest– one of whom has been a candidate for all of one weekend.
And, naturally, the person who nearly won the straw poll is a “nuisance,” according to NBC‘s Chuck Todd (Meet the Press, 8/14/11):
Well, it was a shake-up, and we have a top tier. It is Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. There are a couple of other candidates that can make some waves. Ron Paul proved that he can do that, he’s going to be a nuisance to the field.
Of course, even if Ron Paul had won the straw poll instead of finishing a close second, it’s rather unlikely he’d be in media’s “top tier.”
Does narrowing the field down at this point help any voters assess the candidates? Does it clear up questions about what the candidates are saying about the issues? Of course not. But it gives campaign reporters a horse race with fewer horses. Which is apparently what they want.
Though I cannot vote for Paul (he does not completely understand how the economy works), I cannot abide how the media neglects the man. It reminds me of those anti-Iraq War marches that involved hundreds of thousands of marchers with nary a peep from the MSM. If ever anyone doubts there exists such a thing as “the corporate media”, Paul’s shameful treatment provides evidence to the contrary.
The JEB Is UP; Obummer’s (Poppy) Bush-diving cum 2012!
This sounds like a typical mass media utterance. I.e. top tier candidates are the one’s that have achieved high media success and attention. In fact, “top tier” candidates are as much media products as they are media subjects. If our political situation requires us to put forward the most distinguished candidates, distinguished much more by their intelligence, dedication to the national best interest, the least devotedly partisan, having the greatest breadth and depth of insight into our problems, etc., than by superficial factors, including media positioning, then Ron Paul should certainly be counted among the top tier candidates. In fact, the so called top tier should not be a fixed number, but should vary according to the actual number that legitimately achieve that status. If including Ron Paul makes the top tier number “4” rather than “3,” than that’s as it should be. I’m certainly not a republican, but I consider Ron Paul the candidate that offers us, not merely the greatest challenge to Obama, but the greatest hope for our nation. In fact, I number myself so far to the left, that Obama is, more or less, a republican, so that in the next election, we’ll be effectively choosing from among republicans from both sides of the aisle, and Paul is easily, the best, perhaps the only, true conservative in the bunch. I’ll not argue the point whether Obama should be considered the only “serious” republican in this race. If you argue that point, you yourself are not serious, and are actually part of the problem we’re supposedly trying to repair with presidential elections. Media have an obligation to put forward the best candidate “as media see him/her,” and not pretend to have “no interest in the outcome,” which is a preposterous and deceptive notion, injurious to our country. The worst thing that Obama can face, is “no challenge,” which is the situation we face with such fools as Bachman, Palin, Romney, Perry, etc. Only Ron Paul gives Obama a run for his money, and honest media should say as much. Without a realistic republican challenge, Obama will have even less interest in deviating from his shallow, apparently unprincipled, spinelessness, in the face of republican obstructionism.
All the GOP candidates are top tier and top of the heap, of an enormous, foul smelling. nauseating pile of rancid shit. They all need (with the exception of Ron Paul) to be flushed into the country’s sewer system and never heard from again.
@john:
tl; dr
It has always baffled me why a piss ant State like Iowa should have so damn much influence on national politics.
I’m no fan of Pawlenty but it strikes me that coming in third on a mock election which only involved a small fraction of the population, and they had to pay for the privilege at that, was hardly a fatal blow. So instead we got the real GOP beauties of Bachman and Perry. May be good since they are so terrible, despite his lack of conjones, Obama might take it again.
I associate myself with Robert’s comments.