Black Eye for Blogging?

This article has an interesting take on the exit poll anomalies: it was all the bloggers' fault.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Internet "blogs" ended up with egg on their faces this week after releasing early exit-poll data from Tuesday's vote suggesting John Kerry (news - web sites) was on his way to a victory against George W. Bush. Blogs, short for web logs, are online diaries, became a major phenomenon in the 2004 campaign. But the mistakes, while not of the magnitude of the 2000 election fiasco, opened a debate over the credibility of the sites and of the exit polls being used. Although the preliminary exit poll data were not widely used by television networks and other mainstream media, the misleading news spread like wildfire and even prompted a selloff late in the day Tuesday on Wall Street when it appeared Bush was in trouble.

That answers everything: the bloggers do not practice "journalistic standards" and thus they screwed up the data. There are a few things missing from the article. I'd like to see an actual explanation of normal exit poll patterns. Is it a good "journalistic standard" to monkey with the numbers at the end of the day? Is it "solid reporting" when exit poll "results" are manipulated to match the official numbers, and presented in summary form to the public? Are the bloggers (and the general public) unable to cope with the actual raw exit poll data, including time stamps? Poor stupid public. Silly bloggers. You just focus on the anchor-lady's boobs and let us do the math.