Remember Dylan Byers? Politico’s ‘media’ blogger? This was some great stuff of his:
Just before noon on election day, [Nate] Silver’s model gives President Obama a 90.9% chance of winning re-election with 313 electoral votes. Should Obama win with something near that number of electoral votes, Silver will be treated like a hero. Should Obama lose. … Hey, Romney always had a 9.1% chance.
Nice work, if you can get it.
Dylan is not exactly up to shouldering the task of understanding things. For example, just what a 90%-10% statistical probability means. Or why it even exists. And why the stubborn little 10% doesn’t immediately obviate the 90%. That gay wizard is a real douche.
But wait. Now we have Byers trying to get a handle on Today:
Ted Cruz, Wendy Davis and media bias
By DYLAN BYERS | Politico.com
Sen. Ted Cruz has been speaking on the Senate floor for almost 19 hours, as of this post. The talk is not technically a filibuster — he can’t actually block the Senate from going about its business — but symbolically, it’s more or less the same thing.
Symbolism he understands.
The point is to show one’s opposition to something through a demonstration of physical will.
It’s reality that’s so confusing.
I’ll grant Byers’ explanation of the point of Cruz’ demonstration. But the point of a filibuster is wildly different: It’s to kill legislation. One thing is, at best, drama. The other thing is strategic. One is play-acting, the other is real. There’s a big difference between your kid getting in his tiny toy car to drive around the backyard and you driving your Chrysler around town. Sorry to have to illustrate the obvious, but Dylan just doesn’t get it. This puts him in cat-brained company:
Which is why you can forgive conservatives for being upset with the mainstream media’s coverage of the Cruz affair. When a Democrat like Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis filibusters against abortion restrictions, she is elevated to hero status, her tennis shoes become totems. When Cruz grandstands against Obamacare, he is a laughingstock in the eyes of many journalists on Twitter, an “embarrassment” in the eyes of The New York Times editorial board.
Wendy Davis killed that abortion bill. Ted Cruz pretended to be Brutus, in his mind. One action is a shadow of the other. Along these lines you might also recall that John Wayne wasn’t actually a Green Beret. Ronald Reagan never commanded a submarine.
. . Cruz certainly has an elitist strain and he certainly has political ambitions. But that’s not the point: The point is that the coverage of Cruz has been critical, and in some cases unforgiving, from the outset.
A virtually powerless Texas legislator forced the Governor of Texas to schedule a special legislative session to resurrect the abortion bill she single-handedly defeated. Why wasn’t this criticized for being pointless? Answer me. Why wasn’t she treated like a clown?
At least initially, Davis wasn’t viewed through a critical lens at all. Her willingness to stand for 11 hours was evidence of the American dream in action. Period.
The lack of balance points to blatant hypocrisy. Ted Cruz’ bloviating should be recognized as a filibuster. George Zimmerman has every right to be called a civil rights activist. In Politico’s good name, Dylan could award Michele Bachmann the Nobel Prize in chemistry and refer to her as ‘Madame Curie’ from now on. It’s not a journalist’s job to know anything about the truth, but it is his job to recalibrate the two sides.