The most interesting thing about this post-election time is how at least some fo those who made grand predictions have come back and said they were wrong. I don’t remember this level of crow-eating, and while it would have been better if they hadn’t made the mistake in the first place, owning up to it in retrospect is better than nothing.
The internet seems to have resulted in the past not staying in the past. When candidates contradict what they said before, we know about it quickly. When pundits get it really wrong, they can’t act like they never said anything.
While it’s easy to think of the internet promoting bad journalism and short attention spans, it seems to have meant more atention paid to past words and deeds. Slips get spread around quickly (which may be good or bad), and flip-flops or outright lies or wrongheadedness get exposed. That seems like a good thing.
Increase candidate/pundit responsibility? Already has. They are completely responsible for what they do and say, especially when people find out about it. Will they someday realize that what they say and do will be instantly sent around the world, especially by people who don’t like them? I kinda hope not. Hubris + YouTube has provided much entertainment in recent years and I’d hate that they got smart and a little less egotistical, but I don’t think that will happen anytime soon.
My opinion: It will matter most among those who need it least. If Nate Silver* gets something wrong, or says something dumb, it becomes an issue and he has to retract or lose face. If Rush Limbaugh says something dumb, it probably means his mouth is open. His listeners are like unto the lilies of the field: They care not, neither do they fact-check.
*(who art in the NYT, blessed be his name, his p-values come, his regressions work, in mid-terms as they do in presidential elections)
No individual politician will learn, but politicians as a whole will. It’s the same sort of natural-selection effect by which deer learn to fear humans: Some deer fear them naturally, some don’t, and the ones that don’t get shot. Likewise, some politicians are naturally net-savvy, some aren’t, and the non-savvy ones are gradually getting culled.
You do remember Newt saying something to the effect that if people played that video [of him saying what he’d just said he hadn’t said] that they would be ‘taking it out of context’ because he didn’t say what he’d said?
I think the Internet will force us to admit that a certain percentage of the population live in an altered, but parallel universe that operates by rules that we just can’t comprehend.
Which was more important in the outcome of the election-- how Romney reversed himself on so many previously held positions, or how he repeatedly lied about the fact that he had reversed himself on so many previously held positions; or neither of the above, what mattered was the positions he claimed to hold as the election approached?
With me, it was choice 3. What he believed or didn’t in the past was irrelevant to what he was espousing in 2012, though evidence of his lying certainly reinforced my decision.