Read on Twitter
Maggie Haberman is out here calling Biden a very flawed candidate based on her intuition or something and desire to stir shit up, while her other colleagues are reporting that Biden has a massive polling lead.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/us/politics/trump-biden-poll-nyt-upshot-siena-college.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage&fbclid=IwAR13g9Px-V8tHdTJPXYPtcDCaD0D92vhbP8Ey9WFXae9sP9u3INTKg6y5mw
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/us/politics/trump-biden-poll-nyt-upshot-siena-college.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage&fbclid=IwAR13g9Px-V8tHdTJPXYPtcDCaD0D92vhbP8Ey9WFXae9sP9u3INTKg6y5mw
The desire by some political journalists like Haberman to want to create their own reality and then report this fake reality is so distorting and does such a disservice to readers.
It’s a product of horse race journalism that favors chaos and drama over facts and the public.
It’s a product of horse race journalism that favors chaos and drama over facts and the public.
There is also this weird desire amongst some political journalists to appear savvy and all knowing like a tarot card reader, rather than sticking to reporting facts. @jayrosen_nyu talks a lot about this, but it’s disconcerting to see so little being done to fix this.
Maggie Haberman is a reporter, not an expert. Very few journalists are experts in anything other than journalism.
If she wants to claim someone is a very flawed candidate while they have a historic lead in the polls over an incumbent, she needs to quote a real expert.
If she wants to claim someone is a very flawed candidate while they have a historic lead in the polls over an incumbent, she needs to quote a real expert.
This is a mistake that a lot of journalists in all different areas make. Just because you cover a beat for a few years doesn’t make you an expert like someone who is educated and works in that area.
Covering the space industry doesn’t make you a rocket scientist.
Covering the space industry doesn’t make you a rocket scientist.
