Why Does The Media Seem Quiet (relatively Speaking) On The Minnesota Recount?

[Dinger]

There's something on Rachel tonight, but it seems the media (& whoever else) is rather quiet on this. Why????????

[jberryhill]

1. Because lawsuits are boring stories...

...and the existence of an ongoing lawsuit suggests there are two "balanced" sides of the thing and that whatever the parties say, a judge will eventually decide it.

[dflprincess]

2. Because there's been no news since both sides rested their cases

just over two weeks ago.

I'm just wondering what's taking so long for a decision.

[quiller4]

5. and the court hasn't issued a ruling yet. There really isn't

much point running a news story that says "Nothing has transpired since our last story. Stay tuned."

[Occam Bandage]

3. Because nothing much has happened in the half-year this thing has gone on. nt

[FrenchieCat]

4. Because the real winner is a Democrat?

:shrug:

[rufus dog]

7. Nah!

The media wouldn't be quiet had the Repukes had won the race by over 200 votes after a recount and they would be 1 vote away from 60 votes in the Senate. There wouldn't be any stories or smarmy "sore loser" comments.

[Roadless]

8. If Franken was challenging, we would be hearing about it non-stop.

Bet on it.

[nevergiveup]

6. Because of the absence of drama or blood or sex

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

9. because we're playing the waiting game

til the ruling comes down

then, if Coleman tries to drag this further, it will get interesting.