Election 2010: The Facts Few People Are Talking About

Much like the media coverage leading up to this year's election, post election coverage has tended strongly to the shallow. The overall lack of depth, relevance, and coherence is shocking in a major democracy. Many examples can be given. Here for the moment are a few points.

1. What was the national voter turn-out figure? Was it over 50% of registered voters, to say nothing of elegible voters? If it was not over 50% how can pundits and politicians claim that "the American people" have spoken? Clearly, if fewer than 50% of eligible voters actually voted, no matter who "won" the election, it is still a minority vote.

2. What are the final dollar figures spent on all Congressional campaigns combined? How does this figure compare with past elections? What portion of the dollar amount can be attributed to anonymous donors? How does this compare with past elections? (This question tries to get at the effect of the Citizens United decision as well as erroneous FEC decisions.)

3. At what cost to our country was this highly negative campaign carried out?

4. Why is the "tea party" movement treated with undue deference and attention? Why was there no similar coverage of the One Nation march on Washington on October 2, a rally which attracted thousands of people from all walks of life?

5. Why are so few pointing out the voters in 2010 skewed older than the average age?

In short, the "facts" being reported are often emotionally-charged judgement calls, made to conform to preconceived notions as determined by the media echo chamber.

Finally, I call for a Senate investigation of the conduct of NPR which, with some exceptions, has participated in the prejudicial media narrative of a presumed Republican win (well before it actually happened) followed by momentous-sounding hubris far-overstating the facts. Some of the early commentary about divisions in the Republican coalition hint that the Cinderella story-line of a Republican "resurgence" is inaccurate at best.