This is part one of an intermittent series on bad journalism. Yes, I know it's fish in a barrel. My criterion is rigorous, though. Mediocrity will not qualify, nor will obviously slanted pieces or punditry. I will only discuss stories that should not have been written. The worst are those that convey their own irrelevancy.
Today's winner is this one, from ABC News.
The lede:
Predicting the outcome of a presidential election is dangerous sport, but some political junkies are playing the game, running the numbers and coming up with a November surprise: a possible tie between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain.
How stupid is it? Consider line 2, with my emphasis:
Let's call it the "doomsday scenario," and while it's highly unlikely, it is a mathematical possibility.
Still not convinced? Try this, six paragraphs in:
"It is implausible, but given what has happened in the last two elections you cannot thoroughly dismiss the implausible," said Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.
Now, I do consider that the journalist, Jennifer Parker, uses the opportunity to explain what would happen in the unlikely, implausible scenario she describes. I could consider that a public service; but I don't. The concerted effort of journalists to make a horse race out of the campaign, when it's July, is embarrassing. It's even worse when the journalist in question knows full well how unlikely and implausible her story is, and yet she makes 39 paragraphs out of it.
Anybody want to know statistically just how improbable the scenario is? Twenty-four paragraphs in, Parker lets slip the answer, courtesy of our BFF, Poblano:
There is a 0.48 percent chance of an electoral tie, according to Nate Silver, who runs the www.fivethirtyeight.com Web site that has run the numbers on various election-night scenarios.
Whew! We really needed this story, then!
Or not. If you head over to Nate's site and check the scenario analysis, you'll discover that only one winning scenario that Nate tracks has lower statistical odds. That one, for the record, is Obama winning the election without Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Nate, in fact, thinks a recount in at least one state has odds more than ten times higher than an Electoral College tie. Parker -- or, more likely, her editor -- would serve ABC's audience better by discussing candidate odds in battleground states than in indulging in this quadrennial tripe.
So why do they do it? Though they would never say so, it's an easy story to write. It isn't like the rules have changed recently, and the writer gets a little intellectual frisson tossing around references to 1800, 1824 and 1876. You could even argue it's harmless. I won't argue that, however. The story helps reinforce a fundamental untruth -- that the race is so close that things largely out of control of the voters might happen. We have enough difficulty convincing many Americans to vote. We hardly need bogus news stories giving them yet another reason not to bother.
And, of course, the saddest part of the story is that our journalist of the day knows the story is bogus. After all, she provided all the evidence herself.