Veteran political reporter Myra MacPherson joins the Watchdog Bloggers, and shares her impressions of election coverage in the electronic age.

The absurdity that accompanies the lightning speed of today’s instant election results reached a crescendo in the cable TV theatrics of Super Tuesday. Pie charts, whirling circles and statistics whisked on and off the screen in nanoseconds — all of this proceeding for endless hours. A legion of political commentators sounded like they were covering a fashion show; color charts of candidates winning in various districts were described as “turquoise” “burgundy” and “peach” along with the ho-hum blue and light blue. I was waiting for puce.

It made one long for the old days when you could go to bed and be surprised by the Santa Claus of elections the next day. This night, in fact, crowned an election cycle strong on the three P’s –the press, pundits and polls — getting a lot wrong. Speculation has replaced reporting, spin has replaced research. I remember the first time I saw a “spin room”–it was in the eighties. After a presidential debate we walked into the room where each candidate’s handler stood several feet from one another. They were bathed in TV lights and clusters of reporters circled them, with some scribes roaming from circle to circle to get “the word”, which was, of course, that their candidate had done a superb job. It seemed astonishingly shallow news-gathering at the time. But today, handlers text instant messages to reporters telling them their candidate is–guess what?–winning, even as the debates are in mid-stream.

If you wanted to find out anything in depth this year you had to turn to old fashioned magazine reading. The Nation, for example, explained in detail the Florida delegate mess months ago. On the night of the Florida primary, television commentators were puzzling over what it all meant.

Soothsayers come in all forms, from Carville to Rove, resuscitated by the airwaves. And a tiresome lot they are. Thank God for the straight talk of CNN’s John King and PBS’ Gwen Ifill. Perhaps reflecting the historic coupling of a woman and a male African American candidate, there seem to be more women and African American commentators. Some are terrific. However a few of the women seem admirable mostly for their ability to smile while reading a teleprompter.

Reliance on polls has hit a dangerous new low. Someone once asked: what if the Washington Post and ABC-TV staged a two car wreck outside their building and then sent someone to “cover” the “news” of a car wreck? Would that not be the equivalent of creating the polls which they pay for, collecting “data” from their sources, and then turning around and touting on page one the “news” that this is what “voters” think? Funny how the voters often just don’t buy this “news.” And funny how often the media end up talking about how “we got it wrong.” That is why the Washington Post on the day of the South Carolina vote dutifully reported a poll which showed that Obama was getting 59% of the black vote and his white vote would be “barely in double digits.” He got 80% of the black vote and 24% of the white.

I was recuperating from hip replacement surgery this past month so didn’t sit at my desk and tap into the Internet often. When I did, on Super Tuesday, I remained amazed at what young viewers take for granted: Split second up dates on voting across the country. Yes, news gathering has been transformed in astonishing ways and reporters have to text message their leads in real time, plus update the website, a daunting task for sure. While I value this lightning change, the one thing I regret on blogs is the continual comments of viewers. (Some of the You Tube questions during the debates were idiotic as well.) It may be small-d democratic but such citizen participation is thoughtless ranting much of the time. Does one really care about the person who wrote that Clinton’s New Hampshire win was because “it is just her fake cry that won and nothing else?” Surely not the only reason. For that matter, one could hear the same drivel from cable TV pundits. Now comes endless speculation — day after day — of a possible “dream team” of Clinton-Barack. Filling space is not the same as reporting.

It would not be scientific but what if someone did some old fashioned shoe leather reporting and tried to find out what real people actually think and whether this combination really means a “dream team” to most Democrats? Or did some research and reported on the (undemocratic) rise of Super Delegates (party pols added them after McGovern’s 1972 liberal win of the nomination by regular delegates). Or examined the possibility of real change in the primary election system? Or disclosed real behind-the-scenes machinations of campaigns rather than relying on spin? Or examined just how a candidate’s promise would work, or not work? Or what voters really feel behind the surface polling calculation of how, for example, white females east of the Hudson River who were born on a Thursday are voting on a given Tuesday. Yes, thoughtful pieces can be found on blogs and in print but seldom on TV.

Above all, wouldn’t it be a relief if bloviators stopped bloviating? And stopped polishing very dim crystal balls.

Remember all the words, time and effort spent by the media on the possibility of a Giulliani-Clinton shoot out next November? Remember when Mitt’s Millions could carry him into November? Remember when McCain was dead in the water? Remember when Hillary was finished after Iowa? Ah yes, we remember it well.