You know, there’s been a poll pretty much every week “gauging” the distance between Obama and McCain in the upcoming election. Each time one comes out there’s massive speculation, and for some reason it always turns out it’s bad for Obama.
Remember when Obama was ahead by a huge margin? Yeah, when the polls had him 15 points ahead or so, was the media squealing about how this showed that Obama was going to sweep the election? Nope, the allusion was to Dukakis and his lead in 1988. Only our liberal media could turn a huge lead in the polls into a sign that his campaign could be in trouble.
Then when the polls swung the other way? Well, now Obama’s losing ground and he’s going to have trouble. A huge lead was a weakness, dropping numbers are a weakness. No matter what, it’s a problem for Obama.
I want to take a trip. A little journey back to 2004, both before and after the election. Somehow, “conventional” wisdom had become that Kerry’s inability to completely annihilate Bush was… a sign of Kerry’s weakness. Since the war was unpopular and the economy wasn’t doing fabulously, if Kerry couldn’t beat Bush by a thousand percent, it was evidence that Kerry sucked. Polls were showing the race was close, and that was bad for Kerry because if was any good, he’d have been leading by triple digits.
Even in 2006, after the Democrats took it back, the same happened. The Coultergeist, at that nice little performance I saw, made the claim that Democrats were weak because they couldn’t take more than 60 Congressional seats at a time of Republican weakness like 2006. At every single turn, it doesn’t matter how the polls look, they’ll be spun so it’s good for Republicans, bad for Democrats.
As the election gets nearer, expect polls to pop out showing every possible outcome. Also expect that somehow it’ll be to McCain’s advantage. If anything, polls showing any Obama advantage are pretty damn amazing given how hard the media’s trying to make everything look like it’s bad for Obama.
10 responses so far ↓
cpurick // July 27, 2008 at 12:11 pm |
Polls, campaign contributions, voter registration records, editorial content, personal relationships and resumes all confirm that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal.
So are you saying all of that personal bias is being overridden by the corporate interests that control the media outlets, or are you saying that Obama is so bad that even these leftists have to report some of it?
Hanlon // July 27, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
“Polls, campaign contributions, voter registration records, editorial content, personal relationships and resumes all confirm that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal.”
Man, that’s so false I’m not entirely sure where to begin. No credible study has ever found the media to be “overwhelmingly liberal” or even “moderately liberal”. That’s just something conservatives cry about whenever bad stories happen about their guys.
Clinton’s sex scandal dominates the news for two years, Bush’s scandals barely last a week and they cry liberal. Obama’s coverage is full of Wright comments, no one mentions Hagee, the media’s liberal. Obama’s “madrassa” is front page news for days, no one talks about McCain’s divorce, the media’s liberal.
Bullshit.
cpurick // July 27, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
No credible study has ever found the media to be “overwhelmingly liberal” or even “moderately liberal”.
Start here.
Then find me an objective news source “discrediting” it.
cpurick // July 27, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
My bad. I don’t think you’ll find “an objective news source.” Just see if you can find an objective source. I’ve found it attacked, but the authors defend it well here.
Hanlon // July 27, 2008 at 6:35 pm |
“Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.”
WOW that’s flawed. Any time they mention a group or think tank, that’s tallied? Fantastic. That couldn’t possibly turn into BS when you realize that if Brit Hume cites the NAACP and then calls it “wrong” that tilts it wrong.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119035813/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 – No bias
There’s also a study I can’t find on hand that out and out examined EVERY MAJOR news outlet in the 2000 election and found that the media, as a whole, gave Bush more positive coverage.
If you’re going to cite a study, make sure your article doesn’t expose it as flawed.
cpurick // July 27, 2008 at 7:12 pm |
WOW that’s flawed.
Said the blogger, about the peer-reviewed scientist. Maybe they should have just asked you instead of wasting all that money on the research, huh, lib?
Amazingly, Brit Hume and the Washington Times made it to the right side of the political spectrum despite the “flawed” research. Where would you have placed them?
I’d look at your link, but it requires a session cookie in your machine. I’m sure it’s very pretty.
Iran War // July 27, 2008 at 9:17 pm |
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.AbrahamLincolnAbraham Lincoln, 1809-65
Hanlon // July 27, 2008 at 10:46 pm |
Rick, the fact that I’m a blogger doesn’t discount my ability to use simple effing reason. I realize that you lack this capability yourself, but rest assured I don’t. The study’s methodology is clearly flawed. They got a bunch of college students to “scour the media” and tick off when they referred to various groups. No actual analysis.
As a counterpoint, you may want to look at the latest study showing media treatment of Obama versus McCain.
Rick, I have a challenge for you. List all of the late-night pundits from 5pm to 11pm on the three big stations: MSNBC, CNN, Fox. Remember, this is where the vast majority of cable news watchers will get their news (hence the far higher ratings). List off the conservatives, then the centrists, then the liberals. Now, list off the hardcore liberals, then the hardcore conservatives.
If you want some help, here’s a hint: there is only one person that could be called a hardcore liberal, while all three stations have at least one hardcore conservative, while two of them have at least three.
cpurick // July 28, 2008 at 7:22 am |
I apologize; I’ve allowed myself to become distracted with something that simply wasn’t my original thesis.
This statement:
Polls, campaign contributions, voter registration records, editorial content, personal relationships and resumes all confirm that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal.
…does not include “reporting.” I am talking specifically about the political makeup of the demographic that is the media.
The media, irrespective of its reporting positions, is liberal. They self-describe as liberals, they contribute to liberal causes, where they provide acknowledged editorial content it tends to be liberal, and they tend to have liberal associations in their relationships and employment histories.
Now, my original question asks: how do you account for negative coverage of Obama in the face of this personal bias on the part of media members? This question presumes that Obama’s coverage is in fact negative, so it would be quite irrelevant for me to get into a contest over how many positive and negative statements were made about each candidate.
As I have permitted myself to be drawn into that fight, I must now apologize and withdraw. Please consider the original reply and disregard my other statements which truly do not reflect my personal opinion.
I do maintain that there is also a liberal bias in reporting, but it does not necessarily mean that Obama’s coverage will all be positive. This bias simply means that Obama’s coverage is less negative than it should be, the questions he is asked are not as difficult as they could be, and the answers he gives are accepted more than they might be in a hypothetical objective forum.
cpurick // July 28, 2008 at 7:43 am |
As for the UCLA study, BTW, what that study looks at is quite consistent with my description of bias. Specifically, it examines the sources of the information that the media references when it explains an issue. The conservative position is that mainstream media coverage, which is understandably geared toward some hypothetical eighth grade reading level (or comparable; I have no idea what the actual target audience is) , accepts more liberal premises and ignores more conservative ones. And the biggest objection to this is that those conservative premises are usually nothing more than basic economics: minimum wages cause unemployment; “free” health care causes unlimited demand; the welfare state adversely affects immigration.