Still in search of that “Liberal” media. Yesterday “the paper of record” NY Times headlined “Letter Supports Anti-Kerry Bid Over Abortion” which was, of course, then widely reported in the rest of the mainstream U.S. Media.
Today, however, less reported is this: “Vatican Says Anti-Kerry Lawyer Hoodwinked Them“
Mission accomplished.
I spend far too much time here discussing the obvious bias of Fox News. All but those without a shred of intellectual honesty understand FNC’s total hard-right bias. The more insidious deceptions are those at the less-than-obvious places like CNN, MSNBC and the Broadcast News Outlets.
CNN has spent much air-time recently in several egregious misleads that are demonstrative of the way they bend towards the will of the Right. On Monday, as documented by Media Matters, Judy Woodruff and Bill Schneider blatantly mislead Americans with very selective polling data:
The on-screen text, which aired on News from CNN during a report by CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider, read, “Polls: Bush’s favorability rating rose from 51% to 55%.” But only one poll conducted in whole or in part since the conclusion of the debates, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, shows Bush’s favorable rating that high. A Washington Post tracking poll conducted October 12-14 gave Bush a 50 percent favorable rating, a TIME magazine poll conducted October 14-15 placed Bush’s favorability at 49 percent, and RealClearPolitics.com reported that a Newsweek poll conducted October 14-15 rated Bush’s favorability at 51 percent.
And then, almost “incomprehensibly”, as Media Matters describes it, CNN did the exact same thing again yesterday when Rush Limbaugh’s girlfriend, CNN anchor Daryn Kagan, excluded all but the one or two polls that show Bush with an increasing lead in what she described as a “comprehensive overview” of the latest polls.
But it didn’t stop there. Later yesterday, CNN then used a poll taken from Sep. 22 to Oct 1 (prior to even the first Presidential Debate!) to make their case that Bush was leading by 7 points in Ohio! At least five more recent polls in Ohio, show either a tie there, Kerry ahead by several points or Bush ahead within the margin of error.
CNN…Keeping the electorate well disinformed just weeks before they must decide who will lead the “Free World” for the next four years. And again, I must ask, what “Liberal” Media?
I see a distinct possibility that the media is going to be shocked on election day. They’re working so hard to make this a close race (and imagine how much of a lead Kerry would have if the press actually was doing it’s job), but they are as out of touch with what’s going on on the ground in Ohio as they are in Falluja. As Jon Stewart pointed out so brilliantly on Crossfire the other night, all they do is recycle spin. There is no first hand reporting going on. Nobody is doing the leg work to really investigate the mood and motivation of the electorate. I have two dreams. The first is that Kerry wins in a blow out. The second is that that blow out forces the press to start doing their job. Too bad only the first has the possibility of coming true.
I’d like to add a thought. What if the reason they are picking the Bush-favored polls is to lull Republicans into a sense on non-urgency to get to the polls? If Bush is viewed as a shoe-in, some less-than-enthusiastic supporters might decide their vote isn’t needed. It then becomes a plot to oust Bush by catching his constituancy sleeping.
Personally, I’ve come to favor the view that Cheney runs the admin for big business while George is the front-man to lull the not-to-bright religious far-right (can you say howm skewl?) into keeping the party in office.
My dream involves Bush loosing by at least a margin that shocks the Republican party into realizing they’ve played the wrong hand. Money quote from Theresa ‘mama T’ Heinz Kerry on http://www.gay.com: ‘there’s a difference between a moral society and a moralistic one’. Dead on!
Anywho, false security on the part of Republicans can only help Kerry.
Rav,
This election seems far too important to play with that highly suspect notion, if that is their aim.
I think it’s more likely that they are trying to be ‘fair’ to both sides, by avoiding talking about the negatives in the Bush campaign or policy. They have been played for a number of years, and now behave (and believe) that speaking out against the Administration is extreme taboo.
It seems to me that their poor journalism is either fear-based, or flat-out laziness.
Brad’s made a number of great posts about this, and I think he’s right on target. Here’s one:
https://bradblog.com/archives/00000715.htm
i think that making the race closer is in their interest; Brad is spot on in this regard. To this end they ALWAYS have to carry the water of Bush and politicians like him. This is why Cheney’s obscene attempts to scare America with threats of chem/bio attacks and nuclear or dirty nuke blasts are never followed up with questions about security at the ports or various chemical and nuclear plants. Or why Bush talking about democrats using scare tactics are not reported at the same time as the Cheney remarks (except, of course, on The Daily Show).
They may be keep showing the polls close because they don’t want Bush to nlow up the world. 😛
Well, Henry, we are either with him or against him…
That’s what scares me! :O
it should
I’m curious whether anyone has paid much attention to the polls similar in format to the financial futures markets.
At the most basic level, speculators use their own real money (on most sites, at least) to buy or sell "securities" based on whom they believe will be elected president. Such sites include:
http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/ (Iowa Electronics Markets)
http://www.intrade.com (doesn’t actually involve real money)
http://www.tradesports.com (typically just a sports site, but there are many political contracts currently being traded)
Although I have a very good understanding of securities markets, I don’t have a lot of familiarity with any of these sites beyond the fact that they allow speculators to trade with their own money. Does anyone know the extent to which these sites are truly accurate/non-biased predictors of the politcal races, or whether they contain right/left bias similar to most polls? This is an interesting concept in theory, and perhaps could evolve into a more reliable future predictor of political races…
Jeff,
I heard about this a month or so ago. Can’t imagine they really serve any good, truthfully, and a potentially damaging experiment if you ask me.
To me, this runs along the Rove theory of ‘the people will vote for whomever they think is in a majority.’ By hoping to drive up a price, they may be encouraging false motivations. Whereas a poll is driven (in theory) merely by individual opinion, this is speculation.
When I had heard about it, Bush was leading in Iowa’s market, whatever that actually means…
I’d be interested in learning more too, if anyone has facts.
"Whereas a poll is driven (in theory) merely by individual opinion, this is speculation."
True, but my point is that this speculation involves an actual financial commitment on the part of the speculator. To that extent, the speculator has some "skin in the game." As such, I would like to think these sites indeed are more representative of the actual outcome of the election, since people are trading on what they BELIEVE will happen, not what they WANT to have happen (for example, I personally am voting for and want Kerry to win, but I believe, unfortunately, that we are in for four more years of Shrub – I sincerely hope I am mistaken). But this depends on some critical assumptions, as noted below.
"To me, this runs along the Rove theory of ‘the people will vote for whomever they think is in a majority.’ By hoping to drive up a price, they may be encouraging false motivations."
In order to drive up the price, however, one would actually need to have market power, that is, the ability to move the market based on his or her actions, or knowledge not possessed by other traders (inside knowledge).
My limited familiarity with these sites (and therefore, my assumption regarding these sites) is that no one individual has the ability to move the market, and this seems to be borne out by some key technical indicators. For one, the Bush contract to win the election (on Tradesports.com) recently traded at 63.0, on volume of 823K contracts (very heavy volume). What does this mean? Simply put, it means the market believes Bush has a 63% chance of winning the election – note that this does NOT mean that 63% of the electorate will vote for Bush, rather, that Bush is expected to win by some margin (likley a very small one, judging by recent polls). But more important is the volume. On such heavy volume, an individual trader would have virtually no ability to drive the price in either direction (by either buying or selling short the Bush contract) without making a HUGE financial commitment and taking on considerable risk.
Another key assumption is that all traders have sufficient knowledge of all relevant facts, and that such facts are made available on a timely basis. This is one assumption I cannot prove either way by looking at the data, however, I think it is reasonable to assume that traders are reasonably well informed.
Finally, though, I would really question whether someone would in fact seek to drive the price up (or down, for that matter), for reasons other than short-term profit. That is, if I truly BELIEVE Kerry is going to win (and not just WANT him to win), the trading strategy of buying Bush (puns aside) becomes a very risky one, unless I know that I can either (a) move the market (which, based on my above point, I know is not possible) or (b) time the market for short-term profit (either by quickly selling at a higher price or by somehow exploiting an arbitrage opportunity and capitalizing on minute, short-term inconsistencies between the bid and ask prices).
Since (a) is not possible, and since (b) is an inherently risky, and potentially foolish strategy (how many home day traders did you know who actually succeeded in the last market bubble), we’re back to the fact that perhaps there IS something to these sites. Does anyone else have any info or knowledge as to whether these sites are in fact reliable predictors of actual events?