Sunday, January 06, 2008

"Facebook chooses Huckabee, so far" (i.e. "denying the data")

I'm at a loss as to how this could possibly be viewed as ethical or accurate - look at the results!
Giuliani  5%
Thompson 4%
Huckabee  22%
McCain  15%
Romney  11%
Paul  43%
And what sort of ordering is that? (not alphabetical, not numerical - maybe per expected instead of actual results?)
How could this possibly be justified by NBC, which like CNN is supposed to be setting a journalistic standard?  If their excuse is "Ron Paul spambots", how do they justify that he received the most contributions of any Republican candidate this quarter?  If their excuse is that there could be multiple accounts per person, then this data wouldn't be worth mentioning for ANY of the candidates!  I don't even know if he or Obama will get my vote (they both have things I really like and things I don't), but this is just inexcusable behavior by the major networks.
I just don't get it, but I think we've reached an inflection point where the Internet will no longer so easily allow the wool to be pulled over so many eyes at once (assuming a candidate wins that lets it follow this course).  It makes me wonder how many times it happened in the past without it being part of public awareness - maybe with Nader etc, where people knew they were supposed to make jokes but never really thought about what the reality might be behind the scenes that shaped things that way.

No comments: