Can we stop with attributing simplistic, exclusive causes to complex behavior?

[jpgray]

What do I mean? Let's take an example. John Edwards is not covered as often as Hillary or Obama in the media. This is a fact. The ridiculous aspects of DU come to the fore in guessing at "why." What do we hear? People who support him believe it is -solely- due to fear of his platform, evil corporate collusion from the other candidates, the novelty of prominent female/black candidates, etc. In other words, it's all someone else's fault. Is that likely? Those who oppose Edwards believe it is -solely- due to his failure to connect with people, his house, his hair, his political strategy, his rhetoric/policies, etc. In other words, it's all his fault. Is that likely?

It's more likely that it's a combination of some, all or none of these factors that is causing the lack of coverage. Some of it is caused by Edwards, some of it is not. Evidence would be needed to show whether it was more the fault of Edwards or more the fault of outside influences, but no serious claim can be made that it is -all- one or other. People who make such claims sound ridiculous. Particularly when they have a bald interest in promoting/marginalizing Edwards based on their supporting him or opposing him. Magically choosing a "sole cause" for such complex behavior not only sounds immensely stupid, it doesn't help discussion, and it serves absolutely no purpose. Without evidence to support your contention, attributing an isolated and exclusive cause to his lack of media attention is pretty ignorant--the likely causes are just too complicated to be narrowed down so far.

[lapfog_1]

1. I refer you to Occam's razor... - n/t

[jpgray]

3. An Obama analogue would be the idea Oprah chose to support him simply because he's black

That's possibly a factor, but to claim it is the -only- reason for the behavior is just silly.

[lapfog_1]

5. I didn't claim that...

you made up that example.

However, I was simply referring you to a logician's philosophical statement. One that has stood the test of time and finds itself applicable to all kinds of situations...

And the trick, of course, is to figure out what is and isn't the simplest explanation that covers the observed phenomenon.

[midnight]

2. Is it the fact that John is out spent . Money talks!

[jpgray]

4. There's another possible reason

But is he out of money because he doesn't have media coverage? Or does the media not cover him because he's out of money? :crazy:

[lapfog_1]

6. Aha! maybe that is the simplest explanation that explains the

observed phenomenon. (This is what I was trying to say in my earlier post in this thread... guess I should have just let the cat out the bag).

[2rth2pwr]

7. party pooper. nt

[Rowdyboy]

8. The most simplistic answer is often the most wrong headed.....

Fact is the media prefers simple, 2 player fights. Clinton-v-Obama is enough for the lightweights who now pretend to be network political analysts. Adding Edwards to the mix is just too much for Mika/Mona/Nora/Bambi to report on MSNBCCNNFOX. Candidates like Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich really never have a chance. Name recognition is everything. In a race with a first lady senator and a young black charismatic senator there's no room in the media for a third candidate who might offer different IDEAS to the party. Ideas are totally irrelevant. Name recognition rules!

Without media attention everything else is meaningless. Message, organization and hard work all are worthless when the media shuts you out.

[Baconfoot]

9. I don't know if I agree that Obama had more name recognition four months ago.

What I would say is that the media's job is to create a story... and they aren't very creative. Edwards has become this cycle's Dean because they found out that it's fun to have that kind of character in your election story. It might have been different if he had won one of the first few states but that didn't happen. Instead, he has become a role-filler. Could he have fought that better? Yes, I think so. And that's where the money comes in. John is playing by his own rules, his own standards. But you can't play the money game by far more restrictive rules than the other players and hope to have a chance to parlay your meager funds into a victory.

I'm voting for him. I'm phonebanking for him. But if I were him I would have taken every available legal dollar just like the other two major democratic candidates.

[jpgray]

10. The desire of the media to create "stories" out of campaigns is certainly another factor

Again, ask any three people here how -much- of a factor it is, or if it is the major factor, and you'll get three different answers.