CBS mum on calling Indiana for Clinton so early -- and correctly

The good thing about an exclusive political news story is that you're the only with it.

The bad thing about an exclusive political news story is that you're the only one with it. And that can sometimes be because you're dead wrong. Remember the botched state election calls in the 2000 presidential election?

The amount of Mylanta going down over at CBS News must have really gone up Tuesday evening after the initial euphoria of being the first network to call Indiana a win for Sen. Hillary Clinton. And the only one. And the only one. And the only one.

For five full hours. All alone out there in political TV land.

So why exactly did CBS News feel comfortable doing that so far in front of the rest of the media?

The network wouldn’t provide details today about what went down at its decision desk last night, except to say it felt confident in its call at 8:09 p.m. Eastern time. That's when CBS anchor Katie Couric broke into the “NCIS” sleuth show to report the network was projecting that Clinton would win Indiana and....

...Sen. Barack Obama would win North Carolina.

“This feels like Groundhog’s Day, doesn’t it?” Couric said to senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield of the split decision.

Other news organizations did not follow suit, however. For the next several hours, the cable news channels dissected the situation in Lake County, Ind., one of the most populous parts of the state, which did not report any results until close to midnight.

And those numbers appeared to trim the New Yorker's victory margin to a few thousand.

It wasn’t until after 1 a.m. ET that the Associated Press and the rest of the media unofficially handed Clinton a narrow victory in the state of slightly more than 1%.

“When we made the projection," Kathy Frankovic, the network’s director of surveys, said in a statement today, "we remained confident Senator Clinton would carry Indiana based on the information we had gathered about vote projections and the demographic composition of the vote that was yet to be counted.”

A CBS News spokeswoman said the network had access to some vote count information before the Associated Press in some key locations.

It’s unclear what that information was. The networks and the AP all receive the same exit poll data from Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International as members of the National Election Pool, which was set up after the 2000 problems.

-- Matea Gold

Comments

[calwatch]

While the networks all buy into the NEP, they can also send crews out to watch ballot counts. Perhaps CBS had a person stationed in Lake County with unofficial results. Certainly the Mayor of Hammond was blabbing about his turnout and how he delivered Hammond for Clinton on CNN.

[Franky]

They jumped the gun so they could be first, but did so way too early - they got lucky with the results, and now, I guess they look "smart".

Clinton is out now, so it doesn't matter too much anymore...

Time to focus on McCain!

[dave]

does this mean they knew in advance who'd count the votes, and how? characteristic of the mess is also, that what might rightfully be expected to be the outcome of democratic votes, is then presented as it were, as a handout by courtsey of the media (even in the article above). it's about time some serious questions were asked, and some transparency, and possibly integrity, returned to the election process. then we might also see the media deliver fair and unbiased reports and news about a legit presidential finalist like RON PAUL, and stop trying to manipulate the outcome of democratic elections to suit the interests of their owners. diebold is by far not the only worry.

[Wm Tate]

We're reminded of why it's call the Clinton Broadcasting System.
-Wm Tate,
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

[jennifer potenciano]

with all the american political "pundits" scattering their opinions around like philandering men carelessly sowing their oats, we, readers of various u.s. papers (both print & online editions), wonder what need is there for our opinions on whether hillary should still fight it out or quit--or whether CBS called it correctly on indiana results?

overnight, so suddenly there’s no dearth of “wise” men & women so brilliant—after the fact--on their judgment to force hillary to surrender. & so, why should the all-knowing u.s. papers & news agencies want to know our “neurotic” (as some in the press implicitly ad hominem us, readers) opinion on their hillary query pose. of course you in the u.s. media already KNOW the answer YOU WANT, just as you KNEW BEFOREHAND WHO YOUR DEMOCRAT NOMINEE WOULD BE.

wasn’t it obvious by the way you in the u.s. press, generally speaking, (mis)treated hillary, lambasting her, ridiculing, insulting her, belittling all her pronouncements, hyping up—magnifying--all her gaffes and misstatements?

wasn’t it patently clear with your oh-so-gentle treatment of her opponent, giving him the best spots & space, the most positive media mileage, and when you have to focus on his flaps & character flaws & misjudgments, extending to him the kid’s glove treatment or, worse, trying to look the other way, as if he never did anything wrong in his entire life? wasn’t your press/media bias for hillary’s opponent so abhorrently manifest with your supposed “straight news stories” & “news features” so altogether slanted in his favor, written by supposedly veteran reporters, including those from the wires, such as those from AP, etc.? sad to say, in these out-&-out hillary-smearing reports, objectivity died after a severe beating by those newsmen--& editors--who should know better.

in a great sense, this was what susan jacoby, in castigating you, the americans, for your inability to debate extensively & substantially & intelligently on the great issues of the day, meant in her well-written op-ed (newspaper) piece she titled “talking to ourselves,” a phrase, incidentally, she lifted shamelessly, i dare say, from a passage in one novel of my favorite jewish-american literary icon. jacoby might want me to point out to her the novel i’m referring to & the exact page & exact statement. i’d gladly do so.

& so i say, hillary rodham clinton found the democratic nomination very tough, but it’s not because of her lack of qualifications (no, she’s awesomely intellectually gifted, & her opponent can barely hold a candle to her, w/c is the reason he ultimately refused to debate her, as he always lost in all their debates). it’s because the u.s. media & the monolithic black people connived, conspired to put hillary down, with the u.s. media printing/using only “stories” which were favorable to hillary’s opponent & damaging to hillary. in this situation, it’s a no-win, back-to-the-wall case for hillary.

sad to say, the moguls u.s. press/media & the blacks aren’t yet ready for the first ever first woman u.s. president, even if she is as brilliant & as gutsy as hillary is. you have made your choice, so brace yourselves for the consequences, no matter horrifying how these may be, as i see it.

the us of a isn’t as yet ready for your first margaret thatcher, when a lot of countries, even those in the 3rd world, have embraced the fairer sex as heads of state, who’ve proven themselves as competent as their male counterparts (the likes of golda meir of israel; yes, thatcher of uk; germany’s present chancellor, angela merkel; bandaranaike of ceylon, i think; our very own cory aquino of the philippines; indira gandhi of india; & including those illegitimate amazon-like female crown usurpers, like gloria macapagal arroyo, also from the philippines, etc.).

hillary found the democratic nominating contest so tough because the u.s. media moguls (in general), swooning like effeminate “cross-dressers” over hillary’s opponent (under what spell i just can’t fathom) made sure it would be very tough for her to hurdle, because the blacks—admit it or not for these people (& this isn’t a racially tinged—but just a matter-of-fact--statement)—turned monolithic for one of their kind, because america is largely still a paternalistic, misogynist society, w/c will remain to be so for a century or more.

that may be hillary’s tough luck, alright, but it’s more of america’s loss when they denied the offer of the first authentic american woman leader of the first water to bring them—beyond mere words, beyond oratory, beyond volubility, beyond mere flashiness--to the promised land, in a manner of speaking.

& so i say to the behemoths of the u.s. media/press, you have made your obama bed. so lie on it.

[joe]

hilary knew obama was going to win, because he was picked at the meeting of the Bilderberg group in wash dc. (hilary and obama were both in attendence)
Remember the whole "Where is Obama" debacle when he missed a speaking engagement in Chicago? That's where he was.