« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Tankful of Reporters

When Cheerleading Is News

Beauties come in ‘bevies.’ Geese come in ‘gaggles.’ Here’s one that was new to me: Reporters come in ‘tankfuls.’

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago.

Concerning whether people think reporters bend the truth in pursuit of their personal agendas:

  • 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure
  • A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.

The good news for reporters is that the proximate cause for this result could arguably be the decision by all three network news divisions to provide onsite cheerleading services during Senator Obama’s “Ich bin ein Beginner” Congressional fact-finding mission and campaign extravaganza. The bad news for reporters is that the exciting and newsworthy dispatches from abroad hadn’t even aired when this poll was taken, which means that most people interviewed probably didn’t know that all three network news anchors have signed on as embeds in the Obama campaign. Just wait until that gets reflected in these numbers.

We know that the coverage of Obama’s campaign stops in France and Germany are exciting and newsworthy because major figures in the media have assured us that this is so:

"The press may or may not have a bias in favor of Obama but it definitely has a bias in favor of being with the frontrunner at a particular moment in time," the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank told MSNBC.

“We’re just trying to do our jobs,” [NBC News president] Capus said. “There’s no question that there’s great news value in Sen. Obama’s trip overseas. That’s why we are doing this.”

Listen to these people. They’re living in an alternate Universe… one where everyone is a liberal Democrat. Three-quarters of Republicans, half of Independents, and even a quarter of Democrats believe that “reporters” who tell us “news” are promoting Obama and would lie on his behalf. Yet people in the news media insist that this is not so; they really believe that fawning over their favorite candidate constitutes a responsible job of covering the news. These are the same people who will later profess puzzlement when they learn that The Press ranks right down there with Congress and the Pre-Owned Automobile Industry on the public’s list of most untrustworthy institutions.

Will all the biased coverage lead inexorably to a Democratic victory in the Fall? I think it’s likely to turn out just the other way. People aren’t stupid; they’ll correct for the reporters’ cheerleading behavior by adding Republican windage to everything they read and hear from “reporters.” The more biased the reporters seem, the more corrective adjustment voters will add to what reporters say. The promotion of Obama by the press is therefore as likely to benefit McCain as hurt him. It may also cause voters to re-assess the “damage to the Republican brand” that “reporters” are always “reporting” on. If “reporters” can’t be trusted — if everything they say has to be considered a form of Obama campaign literature — perhaps Republicans deserve another look.

COMMENTS

  • Jeff_Emanuel

  • itrytobenice

    Think about the 1980s. The media was insane with Reagan Derangement Syndrome but he won elections by wide margins. At the time, there were only the big three, AP and Reuters.

    I, as well as many others, just simply worked from the assumption that they weren’t telling me the whole story and voted against the media.

    At least today, there is accurate information available for the masses. Many of them won’t ever read it, but many others will.

    Rs still have a chance, particularly as the Religion that is Obamism flourishes in the media hot houses.

    • rjd27

      be bothered by this. But, what troubles me the most, isn’t the partisan media, but that Republicans/Conservatives haven’t done a better job of balancing it.

      I’ve been reading some history (A Patriot’s History of the United States, for one), and one of the most interesting things I’ve come to realize (and some of this I knew, but I just never took in full context) is that the American press has almost always been partisan (give or take a year or two). From the early days of the republic, to the 1820′s to the present, the media has always taken one side.

      What I’m inclined to do now, is research journalism history and find out when it was decided that journalists were meant to be objective (actually, I did this about 10 years ago in college. If memory serves, objective journalism evolved out of the “Yellow Journalism” era). But, the more I think about it, I’m not so sure objective journalism has ever truly existed.

      What we, as Conservatives and Republicans – or, even Independents – must do, is balance out the liberal tone.

      • Mord

        People may be more likely to poll with their heart, but vote with their head. I dunno.

      • Flagstaff

        I like the new collective noun. Perfect!

        • Flagstaff

          With your statement:

          Will all the biased coverage lead inexorably to a Democratic victory in the Fall? I think it’s likely to turn out just the other way.

          I think the jury’s still out, but it has to give Obama big help. If it doesn’t, then we might as well forget about the power of advertising.

          Then

          People aren’t stupid; they’ll correct for the reporters’ cheerleading behavior by adding Republican windage to everything they read and hear from “reporters.” The more biased the reporters seem, the more corrective adjustment voters will add to what reporters say. The promotion of Obama by the press is therefore as likely to benefit McCain as hurt him. It may also cause voters to re-assess the “damage to the Republican brand” that “reporters” are always “reporting” on. If “reporters” can’t be trusted ? if everything they say has to be considered a form of Obama campaign literature ? perhaps Republicans deserve another look.

          I think that is a lot of happy talk that we wish were true. The people likely to be affected by the pro-Obama press coverage are the very people McCain needs to convince in order to win. They are the people who aren’t political junkies, just get the “news” from TV, and who actually believe that the alphabet networks are “unbiased.” They will hear the pro-Obama “news” and think they’re getting it from a non-committed source, which gives it a lot more weight.

          The large percentages who recognize that reporting is far from unbiased is only the other side of those who don’t believe that (30%) or are not sure about it (25%). That 55% probably contains a large number of the still undecided voters.

          In the 30% “don’t believe it” group, there are enough people ready to be swayed by the press they’re confident is fair to give the election to Obama. Any candidate would kill to get Walter Cronkite to endorse him. And although Brian, Charlie, and uh-uh-uh Katie, won’t come right out and say it, their coverage will make it clear who’s side they’re on.

          All we can be glad for is that none of them are as well-respected as that old fraud, Walter Cronkite, was.

          • Robert_A_Hahn

            I’m sure that both President Gore and President Kerry agree with you, as does President Mondale.

          • The_Rebel

            is that it seems quite at odds with the way the voters are being projected to cast their votes. Unless they agree with the bias of the reporting and still want Obama and the Democrats in Congress, anyway.

          • Flagstaff

            But I didn’t say it would make him win. I just don’t see how it will hurt Obama more than help him.

            I doubt that any surveys will be taken on the point.

            I still hope you’re right.

  • WOSG

    Some bumper stickers never go out of style, eh?

    Good post. And good data to shove back in the faces of the Dems.

  • E_Pluribus_Unum

    So now they just do their naked bias right out in the open – and still manage to attempt to spin it.

    The day is coming when they get theirs. The layoffs are not coming fast enough to suit me.

  • WOSG

    It’s a good question: When did the media get it in their heads that they were ‘balanced’ and ‘objective’? And was it a sincere belief or just a marketing scam all along?

    Pretense of objectivity of media IMHO goes back to the era of 1930s to 1960s, when the liberal ethic was so dominant, the “East coast liberal establishment” thought it was all there is. Ed Murrow and those who came after him.
    Buckley and the NR crew had an argument with that, but they were a noisy rabble and brushed off.

    Objectivity is certainly a journalistic ideal, but on the media fails to meet on a consistent basis due to their leftwing bias. I think its a sincere belief on the part of brain-damaged liberals, like Rather and Cronkite and others. They were hubristic enough to think they are the center of the universe and so that whatever they think is balanced from their worldview is objectively balanced.

    • Darin_H

      That’s a lot higher than I thought it would be for the independent voters.