As a paid subscriber I decided to put money on the line for Chris like I do for several sites including the NY Times, Washington Post, NY Mag, The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, The Bulwark, The Daily Beast, Josh Marshall Talking Points Memo and Andrew Sullivan.
I do not want, nor will pay for "hopium", but I also do not appreciate "doomposting".
As a paid subscriber I decided to put money on the line for Chris like I do for several sites including the NY Times, Washington Post, NY Mag, The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, The Bulwark, The Daily Beast, Josh Marshall Talking Points Memo and Andrew Sullivan.
I do not want, nor will pay for "hopium", but I also do not appreciate "doomposting".
Chris does a fairly good job of balancing the two or else I would not continue my subscription.
BUT, there are times when (from my perception) the AVOIDANCE of "hopium" devolves into blind spots with overblown importance to decidedly start sounding like "doomposting".
For example....and this is one of my particular pet peeves.... is citing polls (like from the NY Times) and because they may show a point of two favor for Trump the INFURIATING conclusion that too many journalists use all too often...the dreaded...."...if the election was today....Trump would win".
Of course, the election is NOT "today", so there's that. But the real cause of my frustration is that almost ALL the polls cited have between FIFTEEN and EIGHTEEN PERCENT that are "undecided".
Yeah....this is common...."Trump 43%, Biden 41%" (either in national polling which is irrelevant, and has seeped into "toss-up" states).....the conclusion..."if the election was held today....".....or...."If these numbers hold up, Trump will win!!'
Yes, this election is going to be VERY close. No DOUBT that Trump CAN win. But, the reality is that the polls are extremely inconclusive and the fact that the "undecided" is literally close to one of five voters should be emphasized every single time.
Or, at the very least, cited as much as the lame..."...if the election were today.." or it's kissing cousin..."...if these numbers hold up..." which almost always are followed by "...Trump will win"
As a paid subscriber I decided to put money on the line for Chris like I do for several sites including the NY Times, Washington Post, NY Mag, The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, The Bulwark, The Daily Beast, Josh Marshall Talking Points Memo and Andrew Sullivan.
I do not want, nor will pay for "hopium", but I also do not appreciate "doomposting".
Chris does a fairly good job of balancing the two or else I would not continue my subscription.
BUT, there are times when (from my perception) the AVOIDANCE of "hopium" devolves into blind spots with overblown importance to decidedly start sounding like "doomposting".
For example....and this is one of my particular pet peeves.... is citing polls (like from the NY Times) and because they may show a point of two favor for Trump the INFURIATING conclusion that too many journalists use all too often...the dreaded...."...if the election was today....Trump would win".
Of course, the election is NOT "today", so there's that. But the real cause of my frustration is that almost ALL the polls cited have between FIFTEEN and EIGHTEEN PERCENT that are "undecided".
Yeah....this is common...."Trump 43%, Biden 41%" (either in national polling which is irrelevant, and has seeped into "toss-up" states).....the conclusion..."if the election was held today....".....or...."If these numbers hold up, Trump will win!!'
Yes, this election is going to be VERY close. No DOUBT that Trump CAN win. But, the reality is that the polls are extremely inconclusive and the fact that the "undecided" is literally close to one of five voters should be emphasized every single time.
Or, at the very least, cited as much as the lame..."...if the election were today.." or it's kissing cousin..."...if these numbers hold up..." which almost always are followed by "...Trump will win"
That is in effect somewhat dishonest and biased.
You can take the boy out of CNN but you can’t take the CNN out of the boy…