3 ms·

There are two major party candidates. Check out Duverger's law[0]. Basically, a first-past-the-post/plurality voting system very often results in a two-party sy

There are two major party candidates. Check out Duverger's law[0]. Basically, a first-past-the-post/plurality voting system very often results in a two-party system. In the US, issues like disproportionate media representation and gerrymandering further enforce this framework. So, colloquially, it makes sense to say "both" candidates rather than (unnecessarily) acknowledge that there exist third-party options. This article is not about the presidency (although it might be relevant), and the reporting isn't lazy just because it omits Johnson and Stein from its discussion. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

mindcrime 10y ago
I know all about Duverger's Law, but that isn't the point. There are more than two candidates and refusing to acknowledge that only accentuates the problems caused by the first-past-the-post polling system. It's lazy reporting and people should rail against it.
- Nav_Panel 10y ago
  The article isn't about the presidential candidates or the upcoming election. The article is about U.S. Army accounting. The only mention of the presidency is in a single sentence in a single paragraph: > The significance of the accounting problem goes beyond mere concern for balancing books, Spinney said. Both presidential candidates have called for increasing defense spending amid current global tension. They could have omitted this paragraph and the article's contents would still be relevant. The quality of the journalism would be unaffected, because the actual journalism in the article has nothing to do with the presidency.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    because the actual journalism in the article has nothing to do with the presidency. If that were true, then why did the author feel the need to introduce a mention of the candidates for President? Anyway, all I'm saying is that it's lazy journalism, which it is. It would not have been much harder for the author of TFA to be accurate by simply saying "both major party candidates for President..." instead. That such a small change could have been made, and wasn't, is why it's lazy journalism. That, or introducing an irrelevant sidebar, if your thesis is correct.

mindcrime 10y ago

I know all about Duverger's Law, but that isn't the point. There are more than two candidates and refusing to acknowledge that only accentuates the problems caused by the first-past-the-post polling system. It's lazy reporting and people should rail against it.

Nav_Panel 10y ago
The article isn't about the presidential candidates or the upcoming election. The article is about U.S. Army accounting. The only mention of the presidency is in a single sentence in a single paragraph: > The significance of the accounting problem goes beyond mere concern for balancing books, Spinney said. Both presidential candidates have called for increasing defense spending amid current global tension. They could have omitted this paragraph and the article's contents would still be relevant. The quality of the journalism would be unaffected, because the actual journalism in the article has nothing to do with the presidency.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  because the actual journalism in the article has nothing to do with the presidency. If that were true, then why did the author feel the need to introduce a mention of the candidates for President? Anyway, all I'm saying is that it's lazy journalism, which it is. It would not have been much harder for the author of TFA to be accurate by simply saying "both major party candidates for President..." instead. That such a small change could have been made, and wasn't, is why it's lazy journalism. That, or introducing an irrelevant sidebar, if your thesis is correct.