At some point begining in the late sixties, broadcast networks began to cross the line that seperates reporting the news from creating the news.  Election results were once reported as essentially raw data, some thing like:

Viewers were then left to their own devices to speculate on the outcome of the election.  This format at times lead to surprising "come backs".  News networks began to recognize that some precincts reported sooner than others, and early returns could be misleading.  It also provided rather dull television when one was forced to wait for the mathematical certainty of results.

In an attempt to hasten the results of an election and provide a more compelling viewing experience.  Networks began to employ exit poll results and make early "projections" of winners long before actual counting of votes had been completed.  The first exit poll projections were used in 1967 by CBS during a Kentucky governors race.  The exit poll accuracy proved to be quite good, and the system was expanded for use in twenty states during the 1968 Presidential elections.  Exit poll based projections earned a well deserved reputation for accuracy through the next decade.  This writer can specifically recall thinking both, "How the can they possibly project a winner with less than 2% of votes counted" and "I can't believe those guys are NEVER wrong in their projections."  In the 23 years that followed, CBS and VNS only made 6 incorrect projections in over 2,200 calls.

In 1980, media projections first "became the news" when they projected Ronald Reagan as the winner of the Presidential election almost two hours before polls closed on the west coast.  Controversy arose as people questioned if making such projections were not something of a self fulfilling prophecy.  Most analysis that followed seemed to conclude that yes, these early projections did effect the voting on the west coast.  The networks continued to rely even more heavily on statistical projection.  Buoyed by a great history of accuracy and increasingly sophisticated data harvesting and projecting models, networks pushed the onvelope on trying to call elections earlier and earlier. 

In the 2000 Presidential race, the wheels came completely off the statistcal projection machine.  Florida was called early for Gore, retracted, recalled for Bush, retracted, litigated, recounted, etc.

It seems like Florida 2000 was the first time that the media attempted to create a reality by reporting what it "hoped" to be - as if it already were.  They were, thankfully constrained by the reality that votes were already cast - and no amount of reporting otherwise could change that reality.  (Except of course the Florida Supreme Court attempted to do so anyway.)

During this current election cycle, the print and broadcast media have brazenly chosen sides in both party's primary process.  Early in the Republican  race, the media fanned the flames of an offhanded non-word comment by George Allen into a hysteria.  They managed to generate enough smoke around this non-fire to convince the casual observer that George Allen was obviously a racist and unfit for public office.  The same media scarcely mentioned the evidence of the bizarre writings of James Webb which included a grown man placing his sons genitals in his mouth.  Webb contended that it was ridiculous to find anything "sexual" in such writing.  The media unanimously agreed, and the weird world of James Webb was considered a non- story.

With George Allen out of the way.  Mitt Romney became a target.  Romney's name was never mentioned without the word "Mormon" or the phrase "flip flop".  As a Romney supporter/contributor/organizer this writer was constantly confronted with these two issues.  When potential voters were asked if his faith were a problem, the consistent answer was, "No, not for me, but the fundamentalists will never go for him."  Of course, this was the media template for Romney and what many had come to believe.  When Mike Huckabee finished THIRD in the Iowa straw poll - the media proclaimed THAT was the story in Iowa.  They continued to provide free media to the glib ex-preacher until his popularity spiked just before the Iowa caucuses.  Then the big story was "Romney Lost".  Even though Mitt Romney put together an impressive string of primary victories and second place finishes and was the leading delegate and vote getter going into Florida, every victory of Romney's was discounted by the press.  Meanwhile, everytime John McCain spoke - the media fawned over his brilliance.  Romney won Nevada (larger than SC)  the same day McCain won SC.  The media immediately discounted Nevada (close to Utah, or some other nonesense) and ordained McCain the front runner with his SC victory.

Florida and Super Tuesday proved to big a hill for Romney to climb using only paid media to combat McCain and his allies in the free media.  Romney was the only plausible candidate to challenge McCain at that point.  With him out, McCain became the presumptive nominee - chosen by the media.

For all it's brazen meddling in the Republican process; it pales in comparison to the media meddling in the Democrat primary.  Forget the disgustingly biased reporting that ranges from Chris Mathews tinkling down his leg when hearing Obama, to sudden objective observation that Bill Clinton is something of a low life.  The media has unilaterally changed the nominating rules and declared Obama the winner - even though he is nothing of the sort. 

On Tuesday June 3rd, the AP announced Obama had achieved the required number of Delegates to win the nomination.  The story was picked up around the country and the world as fact.  It was then, and is now, a purposeful lie.  The truthful reporting would've been that Barack Obama had won enough pledged delegates; that when combined with the super delegates, who have expressed their intention to support him when they cast their vote at the Convention, to win the nomination.  It is not even mentioned that these super delegate votes are yet to be cast, and that they are free to change at any time.  In truth, many have already changed, some more than once.

It is incomprehensible how an industry that insists on using qualifiers such as "alleged" when describing criminals who's crimes are indisputable, until a conviction is rendered, can pronounce Obama a WINNER without even qualifying the statement.  The media pronouncement of Obama as the WINNER and the follow up world wide coverage celebrating the nomination of an ultra liberal black man make it doubly hard for any super delegates to "change" their vote - even though they've never voted yet.

Now we have two nominees, both chosen by media elites.  The only questions remaining are these:

Who will the media elites choose to be President?

Will Hillary fight the media verdict - we already know none of our guys will.