I've been following the election coverage on CNN lately. (This could be my problem, but anyway read on). Right after the Super Tuesday results a month ago, a variety of news sources stated that Hillary Clinton would be focusing her campaigning in Texas and Ohio since they were bigger states, while Barack Obama would be spending a fair amount of time campaigning in all of the states.
Now I would think a reasonable person with this information would assume that Barack Obama would take all of the states up until March 4, and then Hillary Clinton would win Texas and Ohio. But if you look at the news media's reaction to the whole thing, it's like they've been making each state some monumental victory/loss. First Obama has unstoppable "momentum" in winning 11 contests in a row, and then Clinton has miraculously gained "momentum" by winning Texas and Ohio. :rolli: To me it seems like they are overinflating the news and creating a story that is not really there.
In reality it looks like the story, to me, is that Obama won by greater margins than expected in the first 11 contests, and Clinton won by smaller margins than expected in Ohio and Texas. The end result is that Obama is up by about 100 delegates, but it's still a close race.
I know that margins are not as exciting as "momentum", but isn't there something to be said for reporting facts and trying to keep some perspective. It seems to me that, in the past few years especially, all of this 24 hour news coverage and so forth has lead to a lot more hype even in the "real news" (i.e. I'm not even including the Britney, Linsey, Paris, etc... news.)
Has too much news ruined the news?