home

How The Political Media Works

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Here is a fine example of how stupid the political Media can be. Walter Shapiro writes:

There is a danger in political reporting in placing too much stock in street-corner and restaurant-booth interviews. (The risks of worshipping at the shrine of polls are perhaps even greater.) But still, there are hints that Obama, who is narrowing the gap against Clinton in recent statewide polls, may be tapping into something even here in Altoona, where the 19th century offered more promise than the current one.

Shapiro has no clue whatsoever if Obama is tapping into anything. In fact, he ignores his own warning and is worshipping at the shrine of polls. The funny thing is he seems to have no understanding of polls at all. Consider this question, is it true that Obama has been "narrowing the gap?" Recently, it is not true. In the last few days, in every poll showing a result that can be compared to a previous poll by the same POLLING OUTFIT, Obama has lost ground. He has lost 6 points in the SUSA poll, 8 points in the Insider Advantage poll and 5 points in the PPP poll. Instead of narrowing the gap in the polls, Obama is actually losing ground in the polls.

Shapiro not only fetishizes polls, he fetishes them without understanding them. Bottom line? Political reporting is almost always incompetent.

< Cheney and Others Approved Abusive Interrogation Techniques | Obama PA Staffer: "[T]his campaign is about politics, not policies." >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sounds like another (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by sister of ye on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:45:37 AM EST
    example of "if I close eyes and wish very hard, the pony will be there when I open them" thinking by Shapiro. The media doesn't want to give up their shining hero gallantly battles the evil old dragon motif, and facts are so inconvenient.


    No doubt (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Virginian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    This is shown in the Newsweek piece today.

    But perhaps most important, [Bill] Clinton understands that if Barack Obama is elected, his presidency becomes an asterisk...Clinton knows that through the long view of history, he'll be viewed a lot less positively if the bridge he set about building to the next century leads to a president with the ability to overshadow him legislatively, as opposed to one who carries on his name and legacy.

    Evil old Dragon(s)...according to the narrative, the Clinton care about Bill's legacy more than the country...because if it were the opposite, "They wouldn't be fighting so hard."

    Its horrible logic, horrible reporting and opinion, and it is horrible for precursor of  coverage of our candidates in the future...

    Parent

    OMG! (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:57:13 AM EST
    Clinton knows that through the long view of history, he'll be viewed a lot less positively if the bridge he set about building to the next century leads to a president with the ability to overshadow him legislatively,

    The ability to overshadow him legislatively? Yes, I'm sure that's what Bill Clinton is thinking about Obama. SNORT.

    It's amazing how political reporters have such mindreading capabilities and always know what Bill and Hillary Clinton are thinking. Golly gee!

    Parent

    Right,,,its the same with BTD's (none / 0) (#18)
    by Virginian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:00:03 PM EST
    Shapiro piece though...but instead Shapiro is divining the voters minds (regardless of the fact the poll trends he "relies" on show the opposite)

    Its phoey

    Parent

    Isn't sad how fast quality (none / 0) (#16)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:59:08 AM EST
    of journalism drops off when the journalist becomes a supporter?

    Shapiro made his bones doing "take no prisoners" investigative journalism.

    He should be ashamed.

    Parent

    Political Reporting (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:45:46 AM EST
    at any level imaginable is infomercialism.

    Given the media's track record at electing presidents I've decided to vote for the candidate least propped up by the media.


    What... (none / 0) (#10)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:53:37 AM EST
    you don't think George W. Bush is a great president?

    But-but-but-but Chris Matthews told me he was the manliest man evah after that "Mission Accomplished" stunt!

    Parent

    I tried to watch CNN last night for a bit too (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:46:17 AM EST
    Three talking heads talking about how Obama had been narrowing the gap and I'm asking myself, "Do these people read anything other than their own drivel?"  I had to shut it off!  The media is either losing its mind or blantantly lying its butts off trying to swing general opinion.  I'm back to watching John Stewart again for fair and balanced reporting!  SHEESH!

    I haven't watched Jon in a long time (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:59:16 AM EST
    I've always had this uncomfortableness about Political Comedy.

    Clearly Political gyrations are prime fodder for high comedy.  

    I just think Political Comedy has the unintentional byproduct of supporting a fundmentally Conservative mindset:  That the public sector is incapable of adding anything good to society.


    Parent

    Jon Stewart (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:25:04 PM EST
    actually doesn't do very much along those lines.

    Jay Leno is far and away the ugliest and most cynical, despite his ho-ho-ho good-natured shtick.

    Parent

    With Jay (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    It's intentional.


    Parent
    To Me (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:53:05 PM EST
    I just think Political Comedy has the unintentional byproduct of supporting a fundmentally Conservative mindset:  That the public sector is incapable of adding anything good to society.

    This is a extremely conservative position.

    You must be talking about the comedians Limbaugh, Coulter and O'Reilley et al. Otherwise you are way off the mark, imo.

    Parent

    All the conservative folks I know (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    Who think the public sector should be defunded, they all love Jon Stewart.


    Parent
    So What? (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:08:07 PM EST
    The fact that your conservative friends like Stewart and yet believe he is incapeable of adding anything good to society says more about your friends than the notion:

    Political Comedy has the unintentional byproduct of supporting a fundmentally Conservative mindset.

    Not a very convincing argument to support your theory, imo.


    Parent

    You didn't quote (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:23:46 PM EST
    My entire statement.

    If it hadn't occured to you I'm talking about taxes and how people justify their positions on taxes.

    Political Comedy says government is dysfunctional.  If only comically so.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    Quoting your entire statement does not make your entire statement any less absurd.

    You are free to express your extreme conservative viewpoints, even if they are utter nonsense and poorly constructed arguments.

    Polical comedy is a form of dissent. To argue that because your Conservative friends love JS it but want to eliminate public funding in no way supports your argument that Political Comedy  

    has the unintentional byproduct of supporting a fundmentally Conservative mindset:  That the public sector is incapable of adding anything good to society.

    Your comment is meaningless. You may as well say that the progressives support the conservative mindset because it gives them something to disagree with.

    The fact that your Conservative friends are such overt hypocrites is no surprise. They sound typical.

    Parent

    Still shocked by CNN! (none / 0) (#37)
    by LadyDiofCT on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    I heard that too, and my head just started to shake.  Do you believe these guys (and Gloria Borger)?  The so-called 'poll of polls'.  They won't even tell you which polls are included in the Poll of Polls that give this inaccurate estimate.   I continue to be amazed at the outright lies, and disdain, against Hillary from these so-called journalists.  But.... she continues to hang in there.   Imagine the numbers if she got half the good press Obametoo gets (saw this new name for him in a comment yesterday and laughed my head off).  Would CNN and MSNBC be calling for him to drop out then? NOT.

    Parent
    unfortunately people's choices for reliable news (none / 0) (#52)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:55:32 AM EST
    is narrow and people view cable news because its on 24/7.

    the good news is that people are now on to their "fair and balanced" reporting and are moving away from it. Cable news isn't as popular as even though the same polls the pundits pin their hopes on show.

    The other good news is the internet has had such an impact on elections,specifically Obama's. Because the brightest minds are finding a voice and venue for  the truth-for now- and will call BS for what it is.Until the power brokers in DC take it away.


    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:48:38 AM EST
    There are so many things wrong with this story - from the attitude of "yes, he's a phony but at least he tries real hard at phoniness" re: bowling, to the Obama supporter uncritically repeating the lie that Clinton accepts corporate money.  But this is the worst:

    "I don't want to sound like a broken record," [Obama staffer] Lesko said, "but this campaign is about politics, not policies."

    Ummmm.... government is about policies!  That's what makes a difference in people's lives.

    So what distinguishes the Obama infatuation (none / 0) (#14)
    by Virginian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:58:15 AM EST
    from the 2000 Bush infatuation in your eyes? I don't see much of one

    Parent
    true dat, but thanks to GWB (none / 0) (#53)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:58:48 AM EST
    it lost its focus for 7 years

    Parent
    If We've Learned Anything (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by The Maven on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:49:11 AM EST
    from the past several election cycles, it's that many (if not the overwhelming majority) of political reporters for the biggest venues in the traditional media are best at writing stories that fit squarely into their preconceived notions of how any given campaign should be playing out.

    If anecdotes from on-the-ground reporting don't jibe with how things "ought" to be, discard them as being from people who haven't been following closely enough or aren't likely to vote, or from towns that aren't representative.  If available polling data contradicts the prefigured view, ignore it.

    It's so much easier instead for the reporters and pundits to believe they're merely following that simple rule for authors:  "Write what you know."  Unfortunately, while what they think they know may be immense, what they actually know may not be very much.  And the larger the gap between the two, the worse the reporting.

    heh didn't Rush Limbaugh (none / 0) (#54)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    name his book How Thing Ought To Be?

    Parent
    I started reading the Shapiro article (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    but gave up because it's just a "puff" piece.

    It's not news, and not really an editorial.  It might as well have been written by the Obama campaign.

    Sounds like the media will be in (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:53:30 AM EST
    for another post-New Hampshire moment. How will they explain away their wildly inaccurate predictions this time?

    Archie Bunker Bigots (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:55:31 AM EST
    and the "Bradley-Wilder effect.

    And Cheesesteaks.

    Parent

    IACF (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:02:11 PM EST
    (It's all Clinton's Fault.)

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Parent

    And bowling. (none / 0) (#20)
    by tree on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:09:24 PM EST
    my shoes vs. political reporters (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by Kensdad on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:20:29 PM EST
    i've dragged my butt up and down so many streets in the suburbs of philly over the last two weekends that my shoes are wearing down.  i've knocked on over 500 doors (and made hundreds of phone calls when i was too tired walk anymore.)  based on that, i'd say that shapiro is full of SH*T.  Hillary is very strong wherever i've been.  roughly 60-65 pct for Hillary, 25-30 pct for Obama, and the rest undecided.

    even i know that i'm only seeing a tiny slice of the PA electorate, so where does he get off sitting his elite ass in some corner booth in an altoona diner and writing that garbage?  let him walk a couple miles in my shoes and speak candidly with voters in their own element (their homes!) and see what he comes up with...  otherwise, he can go back to poll-watching or navel-gazing or whatever else he does to figure out what voters will do in his own little fantasy world, but he should at least be honest about it.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:27:55 PM EST
    Profound thanks for what you're doing.

    Parent
    Great post BTD (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Andy08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:24:28 PM EST
    you are right on. The emphasis and centrality of  "story telling" in political reporting is very frustrating and feels insulting to be honest.

    It's very "un-scientific" for starters but it also creates an illusion of the "reality" they want to sell that is very disingenenous.
    The political media reports as if the whole process was another "reality show".

    I have literally stopped reading, watching and even listening (for NPR is doing this many times as well) the main stream media altogether.

    Question is:  what can we do ? I tried to email the media politely. But it's useless; they must hit the delete key automatically.

    Any ideas? Is this how it'll always be?

    He was on deadline (none / 0) (#4)
    by Virginian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:47:06 AM EST
    for a story he had been working on for 2 weeks...

    This is a story about the BROAD shift in polls, not some micro trends in one state or another...sheesh...we've got no room for facts to get in the way of the narrative...

    /snark

    If by a "few" you mean "two" (none / 0) (#11)
    by AF on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    You're right that no polls have shown Obama narrowing the gap in the last "few" days, compared to the previous poll by the same polling outfit.

    But this week, three polls have shown a narrowing race compared to their most recent poll: ARG, Strategic Vision, and Quinnipiac.

    And the poll averages (RCP, CNN) show a steadily narrowing race over the last three weeks.

    It is too early to tell whether the three polls you refer to reflect an end to the broader trend.
    Until then, the statement that Obama is "narrowing the gap against Clinton in recent statewide polls" remains true.  

    I named 3 - the last 3 (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:23:53 PM EST
    But believe what you want.

    BTW, if you mean NONE have shown Obama narrowing the gap lately, you would be right.

    Parent

    Here you go (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:39:40 PM EST
    One by one

    April 9, 2008 -- A new InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll shows Sen. Hillary Clinton regaining some ground she'd previously lost to Sen. Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary race.

    InsiderAdvantage's Matt Towery: "Sen. Clinton has made progress among both men and among all white voters. Her support among women also appears to be consolidating. "My guess is that whatever damage she might have sustained by recent gaffs and media missteps have been largely discounted by the public. The race in Pennsylvania is clearly still fluid. But, at least for now, it's tending back towards the result that was originally anticipated by most - a Clinton lead.

    Parent

    SUSA (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    n a Democratic Primary in Pennsylvania today, 04/08/08, two weeks to the vote, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama 56% to 38%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WCAU-TV Philadelphia, KDKA-TV Pittsburgh, WHP-TV Harrisburg, and WNEP-TV Wilkes-Barre. The results are almost identical to a SurveyUSA poll released one month ago. Then, Clinton led by 19. Today, 18. In between, however, in a SurveyUSA tracking poll released last week, Obama had closed to within 12 points. What happened in the past 7 days?

    Parent
    PPP (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:41:22 PM EST
    Clinton has a 46-43 advantage after trailing by 2 points last week.


    Parent
    Within the MOE (none / 0) (#38)
    by Deadalus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    and still statistically insignificant.  The point is that the trend over the past month has been incredible movement towards Obama.  But you can slice it how you want--that's what polling is for.

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    The MOST RECENT 3 polls have shown movement towards Clinton.

    that is a FACT. Deal with it.

    Parent

    I've dealt with it (none / 0) (#50)
    by Deadalus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:31:59 PM EST
    But you're all caps ignores the larger point:  the small-tic back towards Clinton is not enough to erase the larger movement towards Obama.  She has not reached anywhere near the margin needed to overcome his pledged delegate lead.  DEAL WITH THAT BTD OR TAKE THE PARTY DOWN IN YOUR REFUSAL TO!!!!!!

    Parent
    that is ridiculous (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:35:59 PM EST
    Shapiro wrote his story AFTER the 3 most recent polls.

    Did Obama lose his mojo? Do the most recent facts get ignored because they are inconvenient to the narrative?

    Your comment is beyond a nonsequitor. the WORD RECENT seems to have no meaning to you.

    Parent

    I believe that's a SNAP (none / 0) (#40)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:55:51 PM EST
    funny how this google thing works...

    Parent
    I can dimly remember (none / 0) (#15)
    by Lena on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:58:34 AM EST
    respecting Walter Shapiro's analysis at one point.

    I must have been crazy. Or maybe he's just become much less perceptive. Or much more deluded. I don't know which it is.

    After this election is over, I don't know that I have any political analyst or journalist to respect anymore.

    Except for Paul Krugman. And Glenn Greenwald. (And Steve Benen who is subbing for Alex Koppelman on Salon's Warroom. He seems stellar in comparison to the shockingly biased work of Koppelman).

    Joan Walsh, too... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:21:04 PM EST
    ...has been doing a great job as Salon's political editor.

    I was stunned at reading the responses to her piece about the hate mail she receives for having the nerve to be even-handed; they proved her original point more than anything she wrote.

    Parent

    Danger (none / 0) (#21)
    by Truth Partisan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:18:27 PM EST
    Yes, Shapiro says, there is danger but I'm going to wade right in--and ignore it?
    Yes, logical thinking seems to be difficult in political reporting during most seasons and particularly this one.
    Can we block out the names and have reporters decide on the facts without knowing how they are supposed to slant the story? Please?
    I particularly "like" the stories where the coverage (spin?) is the opposite of the truth. When was the last time we had an election where the big state, Democratic base voters were "unimportant" and that resulted in a Democratic presidency in the fall?
    Er, never. Here's some political reporting from 2004:"His words offer a cautionary lesson for us all, campaign-trail reporters and politically minded citizens alike. It is so easy to be seduced by the ephemeral polls and gulled by endorsements and fund-raising statistics."
    That's Shapiro himself on 1/20/2004, speaking of John Kerry in USA Today.
    More kudos to you, BTD and JL.


    BTD, what's your take (none / 0) (#23)
    by tree on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:22:07 PM EST
    on what the overall poll trends mean? I don't follow the polls all that much but from what I recall about Ohio and Texas polls, Obama closed the gap for a while and then in the last week or two before the elections the gap widened up again. Is my memory right? Is Pennnsylvania following the same kind of trend, a narrowing gap followed by a widening gap as the election gets closer in time? Does that trend have any deeper significance, or is it just a coincidence? Inquiring minds and all that....

    I don't know...... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:39:19 PM EST
    I'm not on the ground there and it's hard to figure out what affects polling.  Advertising, candidates appearing locally, coverage in the local media, coverage in the national media, news stories like a steadily worsening outlook for the economy could all push voters back and forth.

    The economic news is almost all negative which is probably good for Clinton.

    Parent

    My limited take on trending. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    Trending has become a popular way of predicting outcomes due to the fact most undecideds don't make up their minds until the last 72 hours or so. If one then looks at a graph of the poll numbers and sees a candidates line start to move in an up or down fashion this can indicate how a particular candidate will do come election time. The steeper the trend line the more likely that person has of winning. Not an exact science to be sure.

    Parent
    Political Media (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:26:57 PM EST
    Is a great lesson in the lack of objectivity in American Media.  America keeps touting that the press does not take sides, that they are objective.  RIGHT!!  I prefer the rest of the world's  model, you pick up a paper, you will know which way the lean.  America readers are under the pretense that what they read is objective.  

    I saw the headline of the Shapiro piece and I avoided it cause I knew it would be spin.  Thanks BTD for reading it.  

    Consistently a week or more behind (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:37:02 PM EST
    I've noticed Shapiro and others who write the commentary  pieces like that always seem to be at least a week behind the latest facts, as he is in this case when he talks about Obama narrowing the gap in PA.

    That is one of the reasons I turned to blogs for political commentary.

    You missed it did you? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:37:26 PM EST
    BTW, keep your comments on topic please Daedulus.

    I will be deleting this one for being off topic.

    I believe that Hillary (none / 0) (#46)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:33:18 PM EST
    has assumed the negative/distorted play she would get from the media in general (msm/progessive blogs/trenders/etc) which is why has geared her campaign to to talking directly to people via small groups, families, and visiting as many places and holding as many question and answer events as she could.  Barack Obama on the other hand has focused mainly on large rock concert type rallies, TV and Radio ads.  Ohio and Texas  are successful examples of the contrasts between the Clinton  and Obama strategies.  The Clinton strategy requires her to put in many hours; Obama's require much money (which he has a lot of).  We will see who prevails at the finish line.  My bet is on Clinton and direct contact with  individuals.

    Shapiro should have looked at the internals... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    ...in in the new AP poll; they bode ill for Obama in the general election:

    About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.

    Against McCain, Obama lost ground among women - from 57 percent in February to 47 percent in April. Obama dropped 12 points among women under 45, 14 points among suburban women and 15 points among married women.

    He also lost nine points or more among voters under 35, high-income households, whites, Catholics, independents, Southerners, people living in the Northeast and those with a high school education or less.