Bias and Live-blogging

Matt Zeitlin spots a disparity between my liveblog and that of TAPPED. He’s right: there is a discrepancy.
Some of this is that the style of liveblogging was different. I was jotting down thoughts as it went along, not really analyzing closely. The TAPPED liveblog had fewer postings but they were more polished, and more conceptual than observational.
Also, I’m very clearly biased. If you want a completely objective, un-tinted view of the debate, I’m not your man. I’ve worked for Obama since March, and I am sure I’m putting an Obama-positive (and, thus, Hillary-negative) spin on the debate, whether I’m conscious of it or not.
But I do think it’s clear that Hillary was ganged up upon by Edwards and Obama, who both strongly attacked her on a variety of issues. I thought she got angrier and responded less gracefully than she has before; Adele Stan, for example, clearly disagrees. I thought their criticisms were effective; Dana Goldstein thinks Hillary answered them well. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. At the end of the day, that’s all a live-blog can do: provide one interpretation of the events at hand. They are not, and cannot be, an objective account of the debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s