> It isn't so much what happens at the caucus as the press reporting on
> a candidate's viability that matters.
Events like the Iowa caucuses have become, as far as the media are concerned, events that exist basically to be talked about. After all, we all recognize that it is the media which predominantly select presidential candidates these days, but to maintain their pose as "media" they have to have something to "mediate." Hence they seize on whatever event suits their purposes and pump up its significance to the level they need for their purposes. The importance of the event is merely that it gives the pundits an occasion to discuss amongst themselves who would be the worthiest knight to break a lance with King George in the November tournament.
I saw a story, I believe it was in today's Times, that openly discussed the way in which the media hyped Dean "too much" when his campaign was starting, and now is going "too negative" on him to compensate for the initial hyping. This is obviously not reporting an objective external world -- it's the reporters generating their own world.
To make the whole process transparent, it would be best to release the "media" from their obligation to "report." Just drop the pretense that they are conveying information to us about events which have some intrinsic meaning, let them tell us straight out which candidates they like, and we, like sheep, will trot to the polls and cast our votes.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit, 'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet; Nor ever ever shall, until that I die, For the longer I live the more fool am I. -- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)