Is This the Media's 'Muskie Moment'?

Last night's New Hampshire Primary put to rest the notion that the media punditocracy has any earthly idea what it's talking about. Now, from the ashes of New Hampshire, Politico asks if they can rise again. Well, if punditry is dead, a lot of them are still twitching this morning. The same guys who were completely wrong on Monday are, today, trying to tell you What it All Means. On the polling side, John Zogby is set to appear on tonight's Daily Show, where hopefully Jon Stewart will deliver for us a hearty "Wha?!?"

There was a time when polls and prognostications were just a small part of the news media's job. Reporting on the issues and analysis of the candidates' positions were the stock-in-trade then, and about 462 people paid attention, but if they got the polling and the predictions wrong, they still had something to offer. Does today's political news media have anything left to offer besides shutting the #@!& up? Have we witnessed the Hindenberg or the Phoenix?

"I think the people are going to make some judgments about us," Brokaw said.

It is quite possible that voters, who were barraged in the past days with reports about how Obama was cruising to a double-digit victory, already have.

The first order of business will be for the major news outlets to step back and soberly assess their behavior leading up to this debacle, and rededicate themselves to providing the information and analysis that the public deserves. Second will be dispatching reporters to Hades to cover the snowball fight.

What is predictable is that the next several days will feature a Krakatoan display of explosive narrative diahrrea. It has already begun, with The National Review positing that Hillary's substance won the day, which is a lot like a fox praising security measures at the henhouse. Black Agenda Report's Margaret Kimberley advances a narrative I haven't heard yet:

Barack Obama flies high on white dreams of never again having to confront the realities of race in America. The likes of professional right-winger Bill Bennett sing Obama's praises as a "breakthrough" candidate who "never plays the race card." Hallelejah! Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will be consigned to the dustbin, never again to interrupt the mythical American narrative with their impudent accusations. Obama's Promised Land is a place of absolution for white crimes past, present and future. Like Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas, Obama proves the unprovable - that race is no longer "a factor in public policy issues."

Was Iowa the metaphorical confessional booth, with New Hampshire the tug of worldly temptation? She goes on to lambast Barack Obama on a multitude of issues. Does this portend a desertion of Obama by black voters?

I spun several narratives of my own in my spare time, as the early returns came in:

8:15 Is this buyer's remorse on Obama? Is it "Guess who's Coming to New Hampshire?"

8:30 There's going to be a lot of speculation about what happened tonight, how did Hillary rise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes? Does this say something about Hillary, or the media's talent for predictions? I do think that the anti-Hillary elements in the media may have been pushing the ball a little too hard, and ended up rallying her support.

8:35 This showing by Hillary shouldn't hurt Obama too much, unless a narrative emerges that perhaps race played a factor. A lot of people said that Iowa gave more black voters the confidence to flip to Obama from Clinton.

9:30 This close race is being characterized as stunning, but I'm starting to feel like the sucker in a 3-card Monty game.

9:45 Did Barack's voters stay home because of the fait accompli reporting? Did Hillary's supporters rally?

According to Huffington Post, the concensus opening gambit is to blame the tears.

Over at The Political Machine, David Knowles is declaring it a 2-way race, but given my esteemed colleague's record of predictions, (my own notwithstanding) Edwards supporters can take heart. I kid, of course, but he correctly identifies the remedy for confused pundits and voters alike. To paraphrase a bygone Clinton campaign, "It's the substance, stupid!"

I agree completely, and Knowles does a good job of sharpening the focus on differences in the 2 candidates' voting records. Another of the Machine's modest intrepids lays out the candidates' platforms here.

There are substantive points to be made about a candidates' demeanor and public opinion, but these would be more useful if done in macro. Constant polling has become less a measure of public opinion than a catalyst of it. It's like asking a little kid over and over again if his tummy hurts.

What Does it All Mean? It means we have a perfect storm of a hyperactive news media and an easily swayed public. It means that we will all have to think more critically when we consume media coverage. Most of all, though, it means...Game On!