Get rid of the journalists

No one can accuse the excellent Chris Dillow of not thinking outside the box. This morning he takes the BBC to task for their US election reporting:

Put it this way. Why should the BBC spend so much on reporting on the Democrat and Republican primaries, when it can just quote the betting prices, in the same way it mentions the FTSE 100 index? In principle, such prices should convey all available information about  Clinton's, Obama's or McCain's prospects cheaply and efficiently, saving the huge cost of having a mob of reporters over there.

Money-saving and market-friendly. I wonder if they'll go for it?

Alice Fishburn

Comments

[David Moss]

There is a precedent.

The Internet betting site, Betfair, had just set up in business in late 1999 when the chad started hanging in Florida. Betfair made a book in the outcome, who would be President? They didn't know.

Neither did the New York Times, so they rang Betfair to find out how the betting was going*.

----------
* (Why didn't the NY Times just look on the web, why telephone? I have no idea.)

[Candadai Tirumalai]

I have read that all over the world there is very considerable interest in the American Presidential campaign for a variety of reasons: the end of George W. Bush; the diversity of the contestants, Barack Obama in particular; the twists and surprises of the drama (the revival of John McCain, the ascent of Mike Hucakabee, the reverses suffered by Mitt Romney in Iowa and New Hampshire). I would say the BBC knows that the campaign has a wide audience outside America as well.