Tuesday, September 9, 2008

The McCain Bounce #1: The Media

The Media

The media is bias. This shouldn't surprise anybody, everyone is bias and susceptible to group-think. Media members likely don't realize that they're set off to the left or the right because they're always surrounded by like-minded people. Stay with me people, this is not going where you think it is.

What is:

According to a Pew research center poll taken this year some 60% of the national media members identify themselves as Democrats, 30% are independent and 10% are Republicans. They donate money to candidates in favor of Democrats at a rate of $4 to $1. Every honest (RE: Pew, or University of Chicago etc. NOT media matters or moveon.org) statistacal attempt to quantify the effect of the Democrat parties dominance of media jobs, be it word based analysis, commentator analysis and editorial analysis has concluded that the product they put on TV benefits specific candidates usually on the left.

Even Hillary Clinton's campaign fell victim to this phenomena and loudly complained of bias. The chair of her campaign went so far as to say that Fox News was the least biased outlet (a conclusion endorsed by the pew media research center).

So, let's recognize that most media prefers Barack Obama to John McCain. This doesn't make them bad, or dishonest or unprofessional. I suspect that most media members don't even realize that they're slanting their coverage because nobody around them has the perspective to even notice the bias.

Argue with this if you'd like but the mountain of numerical evidence along with my own, admittedly anecdotal, observation has convinced me that reporters cannot stop themselves from expressing their preferences in their reports. Given that and the fact that reporters are mostly members of the philosophical leftist wing of the Democrat party we have the result of a left-leaning news.

What happened:

So how does this effect the election?

Conventional wisdom would be that it would help Barack Obama. After all, if those who are in control of the media prefer a candidate they will knowingly, or I suspect unknowingly, use their position to promote his campaign - they can't help themselves. However, this is not what the polling data seems to indicate. While ratings for every media outlet went up as the campaign intensified McCain gained in the polls. This would seem to indicate that the more the American public is exposed to the left-leaning media the more they prefer John McCain.

Why it happened:

This gets complicated so bear with me.

Because there is a strong sense of fair play in the electorate and the media is largely known to be biased. So the public hears what the media says and assumes that there's more to the story. The news media has become the wikipedia of political information. A fine starting point, but so vulnerable to manipulation and bias that it's not trustworthy.

So if people are assuming the media leans left and then fact check with the campaigns themselves why is McCain benefiting more than Obama, especially in a Democrat year? This is the tough question because one would assume that people check with both campaigns to see for themselves after learning the basic outline from the news. But, I suspect that this doesn't happen. Because the media favors Obama I believe people are using it as a surrogate for the Obama campaign. They don't need to check with Barack... because the news is going to tell them what he thinks anyway. To support this idea I would direct you to the fact that McCain's website receives more hits than Obama's and McCain's campaign has more youtube.com video hits. It tends to imply that more people are checking him out though secondary media, and directly from his campaign, than Obama.

Conclusions:

This hurts Obama because the media is running a crappy campaign on his behalf. The media doesn't do a good job because it's frankly not nearly as biased as Obama's campaign or McCain's campaign. So comparing apples to apples what the McCain campaign tells you to promote himself and what the media tells you to promote Obama leads to the conclusion that McCain is preferable. It is this false comparison that is hurting Obama. He's lost control of his own message. Obama doesn't control the media, but because people assume that the news channels are 'in the tank' for him they're taking what they hear on the news as his campaign's position and looking to McCain for contrast. The fight between a media that can't help itself from being biased and a campaign that is openly biased isn't fair, so it's no surprise that McCain wins it.

The easiest example of this phenomena is how Sarah Palin has effected the race. Stay tuned for more tomorrow (or if I'm feeling up to it, tonight).

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Awfully in tune observation of the current surge in McCain's polls while being slighted in total media coverage. You're an pretty smart kitty.

lady.in.waiting said...

So far I like where you're going with this. I have been quite confused myself, and actually very surprised McCain is getting more online hits, when comparing the obvious differences between the two campaigns' followings. Palin has certainly been getting some good press, too.
Looking forward to your further analysis, as I distract myself from studying for finals.

Blake On Wax said...

Man, I'm starting to feel like we won't know exactly whats happening out there until after this election is wrapped up. Certain factors like African American turn out, the Bradley effect, Sarah Palin and women, huge democratic voter registration and GOTV efforts, state by state iniatives make me feel like something a bit different than what we've seen before is going on here. I am admittedly more knowledgeable when it comes to state (Oregon) politics though, so what do I know?

I find it interesting that even during McCain's surge (or convention bounce - whatever you'd like to believe) state by state polling still leaves the electoral college map with a more credible path to victory for Obama. All he has to do is hold all the states Kerry held + NM, IA, and CO all states where hes polling well - not to mention having NV (huge demographic changes there), VA (huge demographic changes here too - plus Kaine, Warner and Webb), OH (Kerry narrowly lost, now a Democrat is secretary of state)and FL (FL especially since Plain hasn't gone over well with Jewish and Latino voters) in striking distance. McCain has a much harder path - I know hes polling well in MI and Sarah Palin is resonating with so-called Hockey Moms but Michigan remains a huge labor state, PA seems possible but Ed Rendell is pretty popular and Mayor Nutter may be able to make a difference in the burbs. There are other options though, NH, WI, MN - although Obama continues to poll well in all those states. Lets not forget that Kerry was around 120,000 votes short of losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college.

I guess I kinda went on a rant there - but yeah, I think we'll look back on this year and feel the polls weren't very accurate.

Blake On Wax said...

To Clarify: in Ohio Kerry was around 120,000 votes short of losing the PV but winning the EC.

Toby said...

Good point about the EC Blake. Though I think we have to confine ourselves to the national polls and those state polls that have been taken after the convention. That means FL, OH, PA, MI and a number of other states do have recent polls that tell us something about how those races are shaking out. However, we do not have data on NV, NH, NM, IN, IO, OR, or MN. All of which have been within a few points in the last 2 elections. Basically what I'm doing is punting the electoral college analysis for lack of information. For now, I actually think that the national trends are more informative of who's winning *right now* obviously this will change as the campaigns unfold. Especially with the debates.

Anonymous said...

As to fox news... I'm deeply ashamed that I did this, but after a brief trip through google, I found these:

Recent, not complimentary of Fox News.
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

Not recent, contradicts your theory.
http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized

Ridiculously recent, was the closest thing I could find to what you are referring to.
http://people-press.org/report/444/news-media

A decent, brief summary of the important part by:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/24/fox-news-ad-targets-cnns_n_121026.html

Toby said...

Please read any/all of the reports of scientific polling on the subject of media bias here: http://pewresearch.org/search/results.php?cx=005135597546655918890%3Ai5-ahdk_kcq&cof=FORID%3A11&q=media+bias&sa=Search#948

Toby said...

More here: http://pewresearch.org/topics/newsmedia/

Toby said...

Another clearing house that tends to agree with the trends I identified. http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/using/how/polls.html

There are lies, damned lies and statistics... that's why I'm currently working on a post that explains how polling works, and hopefully helps people read this data. I'm not sure when I'll be done with it, it's long...