Jeopardy

Double Jeopardy: Rachal Maddow vs. Sarah Palin

Posted by on January 27, 2012 at 4:03 pm. 5 Comments :

The folks at NewsBusters think they have stumbled on the ultimate put down of one of the left’s favorite spokespersons. Last night on Jeopardy the contestants blanked out on the following question:

“This cable TV newswoman received a doctorate in politics from Oxford”

Accompanying the question was a picture of Rachel Maddow, but that still didn’t help the contestants come up with a correct response. The NewsBusters then opined that…

“This can’t possibly be great news to MSNBC execs given Maddow’s lead role in the network’s recent debate coverage.”

I’m inclined to agree. If I were an MSNBC exec I would be concerned that a panel of intelligent, well-informed players couldn’t identify the network’s star attraction. However, another star of the political universe met with the same fate last year when the Jeopardy answer was…

“Her latest book is titled ‘America by Heart: Reflections on Faith, Family and Flag.'”

Fox Nation - Rachel MaddowNot one of the contestants knew that the correct question was “Who is Sarah Palin.” So if it is an indication of the irrelevance of Maddow that she was unknown to the Jeopardy panel, how much worse is that Palin, who had run for Vice-President and become a regular contributor on Fox News, was also unknown in the same venue? Palin has had far more media exposure throughout the media world than Maddow, who is mostly limited to appearances on MSNBC.

Not surprisingly, the right-wing media noise machine quickly pounced on this story and regurgitated it throughout the blogosphere. Of course that included Fox News whose Fox Nation posted the item with a snarky headline reading, “Rachel Who?” But don’t bother looking for their article about Sarah Palin’s turn on Jeopardy. Fox is not about to reveal the truth about their overpaid, irrelevant leading lady.

TV Pundit Jeopardy

Posted by on January 9, 2008 at 1:49 pm. NO Comments :

Full disclosure: Of the top three Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is my third choice. But seriously…

Coverage of this campaign has been laughably bad. In New Hampshire, Clinton was predicted to lose to Obama by double digits. Her “emotional moment” torpedoed any chance she had of winning. Her staff was about to undergo a major upheaval. Fox’s Major Garrett even announced that Clinton vets James Carville and Paul Begala were about to take over her campaign. He continued to report this after both publicly denied it, and Begala told him personally that it wasn’t true. Speculation then turned to when Clinton would drop out of the race.

There is a sad irony to this since not too long ago all the press could talk about was Clinton’s “inevitability.” Then Obama’s win in Iowa made him inevitable and Clinton a has-been.

Coverage of every Democrat has fallen far short of any standard of professionalism. Edwards, when not being outright ignored, was ganged up on for trivialities like haircuts and homestead. Obama was slandered as a potential Muslim extremist who was schooled in a Madrassa. But Clinton has suffered some of the most vile attacks based on the misogynistic tendencies of the male-dominated press corps. Among the most frequent criticisms is the myth that she starts off with higher negatives than other candidates. Here’s the truth:

Dec 2007 Favorable Unfavorable
McCain 53% 27%
Edwards 49% 42%
Clinton 48% 50%
Obama 43% 51%
Thompson 42% 42%
Giuliani 40% 55%
Huckabee 40% 47%
Romney 38% 51%

Both Giuliani and Romney score lower in favorability and higher in unfavorability than Clinton. But do we ever hear reporters talking about how devastatingly unpopular they are?

So the pundits, as usual got it all wrong. They’ve been wrong every step of the way. And when they are shown to be wrong, they simply shift their weight and devise a new theory that will later be shown to be wrong as well. The big problem with that is that they will be on the air tomorrow (and many more tomorrows) to get it wrong some more.

Why does it have to be that way? Wouldn’t it be great if punditry worked more like Jeopardy? Whoever has scored the highest by the end of the day gets to come back and play the next day. Those who got more of their answers wrong are never heard from again. This simple modification of the rules of the game would vastly improve the media’s political analysis.