Shifting words to maintain the “incumbent” narrative

Did you notice it last night as the primary election results were coming in? The media narrative of “anti-incumbent” is not meshing with the reality, so the use of “incumbent” is being quietly shoved under the rug for words like “establishment,” “experienced,” and “DC-insider.”

The media was wrong in their prediction of this huge anti-incumbent wave sweeping the country, angry voters demanding change, etc, etc. but they won’t admit it. They stubbornly hang onto the theme they set and push valiantly through, changing the lexicon ever so slightly.

Did you notice? You should have. You should be asking “why?” You should be asking why media is predicting and producing a news cycle rather than reporting and analyzing.

And when the final results are in from the general elections and they don’t match the narrative then it was an “upset.” I guess it is all entertainment after all. Very expensive entertainment, but…

Am I wrong?


2 Replies to “Shifting words to maintain the “incumbent” narrative”

  1. “Producing a news cycle” is right. As a former western state voter, presidential elections were already being called while our polls were still open (same goes for Mad Men spoilers natch). Media seem to have decided that Dems are going to lose big this go round. It seems too often to be the tail wagging the dog. I wish it would stop.

  2. Spoiling an election is one thing, but when you start messing with Mad Men 🙂 News media has gone from being a team of reporters to a handful of celebrities all vying for attention. It may have started with Edward R. Murrow.

Comments are closed.