This central point of this poorly reasoned column by Steven Stark over at RealClearPolitics caught my eye,

"If the surprise results in New Hampshire had an unanticipated benefit, it is this: they exposed the myth, once and for all, that the Internet has made political reporting and analysis far better than it once was.

Alas, the opposite is true.

After all, thousands of reporters were scouring New Hampshire. Tens of thousands more (myself included) were opining on the Internet. Not one that I can find came even close to reporting that Hillary Clinton had a chance to win.

It's true the polls indicated otherwise. But an obsession with the latest polling information is, in itself, one of the things that's happened to political reporting in the age of the Internet and cable news."

So, his conclusion is that "political reporting and analysis" is worse than it used to be because of the internet and the fact that everyone, on the net and off, blew the call in New Hampshire proves it?

I could spend a thousand words dissecting that argument, but you know what they say...