There's been much talk about media bias in this election, so I think wise to dissect media bias systematically. To understand the media, one must understand their priorities. The priority of the media company is to get eyes on themselves. The media is a business whose only product is viewers. Then they sell those eyes to advertisers. During political campaigns, politicians and media's priorities align, as the politician wants: 1) eyes, and 2) to show those eyes their story. The media has an interest in the first, but no interest in the second.
Controlling/shaping the media is a politician's top priority in order to effectively sell his story to the public. When he fails, it is either because: a) he fails to capture eyes, b) he fails to have a story, or c) the story is unpersuasive.
There is another priority, of course, in the personal objectives of the individual reporter. And this is where so much controversy lies. Reporters are by and large liberal. But the reporter is under the constraints of the company and can never allow his own view to damage priority 1, getting viewers. Some "reporters"use their views to capture viewers, like Bill O'Reilly. Others use their viewpoint to spin the politicians story. Neither McCain or Obama can complain, for example, of a lack of attention. Plenty of eyes are gathered. But one narrative is working, and the other is not. McCain would love to blame the media, but this is in effect saying that "because the person I'm talking to disagrees with me, I am unable to tell my story or make it persusive." But somehow lots of people are elected, even if most reporters don't like it.
The press conference is a good example. Reporters ask questions. They want to a) ask the questions that get the most attention (eyes), b) ask the questions that they personally would like answered. The weight of those priorities may vary, but (a) generally far outweighs (b). But the real game for the politician is in influencing what is going to get the most attention in advance.
A previous negative ad campaign, for example, can ensure that the attention will be peaked by that ad run. So the media is forced to ask the questions, and then, when those questions no longer draw eyes, focus on the negative ads themselves, McCain encourages this because - in a negative ad campaign - answers don't matter, it's the questions that are important. So the media works for him. If it doesn't work, it isn't the fault of the media, but rather that questions fail to make a story to sell to the public.
Thus, the media's objective is served, the politician's objective of getting eyes is served, but the ultimate interests of the candidate in selling a story are lost. But this is an example of how the media can be used successfully by a disfavored pol.
Ultimately, the media serves its own interests, and the successful politician must align the media's priority 1 to his own advantage. Then, the politician must be pursuasive. If he fails at either of those two things, he loses.
4 comments:
So Obama can use the "any publicity is good publicity" and even bring up topics he cannot possibly win, just because it draws attention. With eyes ever being drawn torwards firsts, historic events, Obama's race is no doubt a fine reason to focus on him and explain a bias media.
Without a doubt, Obama's media strategy has been odd. He assumed, probably in large part due to his race, that he did not have to compete for eyes. Thus, his portrayal of himself has been "smart, likeable, and boring." In most elections, this would lose. But with a deeply unpopular president, a tactically inept opponent, and being black. It works. In context of the post, Obama knew the eyes were there and so focused on message. McCain had to try to get eyes (suspend campaign, pick an unknown VP, attack, etc.) which played in the Obama created narrative that Obama was the calm, safe, boring choice and McCain was the riskier, erratic choice. Brilliant use of the media.
I see your point, but, I don't believe it explains the double standard of Obama's negative ad's and himself being an unknown. Maybe a brilliant use of the media, but I think it requires the media playing dumb or at least playing an "eyes" game that Obama does not have to try very hard at. Creating a narrative (especially the backwards one you mention) should be harder to do. speculation and a benefit of the doubt plays into Obama's hands too often.
I love Ann Coulter! Clearly a few of these poll dates she found are nearly a month before the election, but make up your own mind.
"Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.
In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent. Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.
In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.
In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.
In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.
In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate -- not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In the end, Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004. Most of the October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with Bush 1 to 3 points ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better starting in 2004, or Democrats stole more votes in that election than we even realized."
Post a Comment