The spin machine is like an insatiable monster

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Nice read here (for those who can be bothered enough - personally, it was fun for me to read it):

I Hate Presidential Poll Numbers (or: An Analysis of Why Donald Trump Will Win)

Some select pieces and bits:

"Rarely does a day go by without the media telling us the latest poll numbers and what they mean. And if the election was held today, do you know who would win? Certainly not the Constitution, which specifies that the Congress- and not the media- determines the election date."
...
"Do you know who had really, really low favorability numbers, so much so that they didn’t even bother putting him on the ballot in some states? Abraham Lincoln. And Lincoln became the greatest President in our nation’s history."
...
"The news media wants things to get ugly. The pundits like when things get ugly. This boosts ratings. But it really doesn’t. Heck, the TV audience for five political hacks sitting around a table offering worthless psycho-babble is less than the number of people watching re-runs of Suddenly Susan. So you might as well deliver real news about real things. What have you got to lose?"

He has a point, that columnist. Basically, poll numbers are not news. They have nothing to do with news. And that is the whole point. The problem with today's journalism is that it has abandoned its mission, namely to inform people. Now it is all about opinion, about spin. It is all about the circuses.

For example, here is a strange thing. There is hardly any mention of Bernie Sanders' win in Indiana - anywhere near the top media pages/screens. Sure, you might be able to find a couple of articles, buried deep among the others. And yet, his name barely appears on the Google News aggregate page. The Washington Post and NYT both report the win but say it means nothing, and will not change the outcome. I am not really a fan of conspiracy theories, far from it... but come on! What is going on here?

There was a naive time when I used to believe journalism was all about reporting of the facts - that is why I got involved in it in the first place (I have done my best to stay away from political journalism, though - and it seems that was the right choice). But not any more. Well, depends on the type of journalism that we are talking about, actually. But political journalism is truly a mess.

Now, I am not a big fan of populists with little substance. And it is clear at this point that it is highly improbable that Bernie would clinch the nomination now, looking at American electoral history. Granted. But on the other hand, the way journalists and reporters go out of their way to belittle his considerable achievements during this primary, is astonishing. Victories are mentioned almost as an aside (with the quick reassurance that it does not mean anything in the long term). And defeats are poured over endlessly by talking heads on CNN, always ending with the exasperated question of "when will he give in to Clinton?" Love him or hate him, but do not demean a man who has campaigned hard on the issues a lot of Americans care about. Even if he might be lacking in the substance department on some of those issues.

Not to mention the popularity contest that the article talks about. How exactly is the candidates "favourability" news, and how would it affect the election result six months from now, is beyond me.

Journalism used to be far better from about the 30s to the 80s. I did not live at that time, but I have read a lot of stuff from that epoch. After the Reagan-Thatcher era, though, media ownership changed considerably with owners like Murdoch, and Conrad Black, both with right-wing political agendas buying up major media outlets: The Telegraph, Fox News, etc.

I have witnessed many journalists who were considered liberal, getting fired because they covered labour, social issues, or the environment (I have mostly focused on the latter throughout my rather short career). The editorials have moved to the right, investigative journalism has declined, and columnists have been turned into stars - if they cooperate with these owners, of course. And the public has obliged by preferring superficial, shiny, scandalous things to deeper insight. And that has been the beginning of the long agonising death of journalism. Add the ongoing information revolution, where the flood of info has backfired by drowning out substance at the expense of the above-mentioned circuses - and this whole thing has started sliding down ever faster, into a direction that has become as predictable as it is depressing.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

For example, here is a strange thing. There is hardly any mention of Bernie Sanders' win in Indiana - anywhere near the top media pages/screens. Sure, you might be able to find a couple of articles, buried deep among the others. And yet, his name barely appears on the Google News aggregate page. The Washington Post and NYT both report the win but say it means nothing, and will not change the outcome. I am not really a fan of conspiracy theories, far from it... but come on! What is going on here?

You complain about the media not informing people, right? Why hasn't the media really informed the public about the fact that Sanders was basically eliminated in March? We don't hear a ton about Indiana because the Democratic race has largely been sewn up for some time, even if the media won't outright say it.

But on the other hand, the way journalists and reporters go out of their way to belittle his considerable achievements during this primary, is astonishing

He hasn't really made any "considerable" achievements. He's won a pile of demographically-favorable states (many of which were caucuses) as the only remaining opposition to a deeply disliked frontrunner. I'd argue the media is giving Sanders undue treatment relative to his status in this race. Speaking of which...

How exactly is the candidates "favourability" news, and how would it affect the election result six months from now, is beyond me.

Favorability tracks strongly with electability, historically:



In an election where Sanders faces Trump, maybe Sanders actually makes a run at it because of this. Then again, Sanders hasn't really been vetted because he hasn't really been competitive, so it's questionable as to whether that holds, so favorability does matter to a point.

Since Trump and Clinton are both in the toilet from a favorability standpoint, though, it might not matter too much this year.

Journalism used to be far better from about the 30s to the 80s. I did not live at that time, but I have read a lot of stuff from that epoch. After the Reagan-Thatcher era, though, media ownership changed considerably with owners like Murdoch, and Conrad Black, both with right-wing political agendas buying up major media outlets: The Telegraph, Fox News, etc.

Don't worry. The media is still overwhelmingly liberal in the United States even if they've actually gotten some significant ideological competition recently.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

On that note, I see it everywhere online whenever Sanders wins, but Clinton winning you only see tumbleweeds.

Sanders was done a while ago. He does represent a shift that might be more apparent in the future.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

With a spectrum that tilted towards the right in the US compared to anywhere else, the complaint that the media has a "liberal bias" whereas all it does is actually being centrist more or less by any global standards, comes across a bit overly biased. But that could just be me (hint: it isn't).

Since Trump and Clinton are both in the toilet from a favorability standpoint, though, it might not matter too much this year.

Which only adds more ammo to the point that favourability as a factor for predicting electoral outcomes (especially this early), is hugely overrated. When the choice is between two terrible options, favourability matters even less. Which still does not mean the press wouldn't waste huge amounts of time and effort constructing entire narratives around it.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

With a spectrum that tilted towards the right in the US compared to anywhere else, the complaint that the media has a "liberal bias" whereas all it does is actually being centrist more or less by any global standards, comes across a bit overly biased. But that could just be me (hint: it isn't).

If we're talking about American media bias in American media, especially concerning American elections, it's all that matters. Not the international standing of where it is.

The media might be "centrist" on the world stage. It's left wing on the American one.

Which only adds more ammo to the point that favourability as a factor for predicting electoral outcomes (especially this early), is hugely overrated.

Somewhat overrated in a primary, maybe. It's one of many factors. Clinton clearing the field and Sanders being fairly extreme in the American system means that other fundamentals came into more prominence.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I do not care about American standards as much as I care about universal human standards.

The universal centrist stance is considered left-wing in America, and that is one of America's main problems - and furthermore, it is entirely America's problem, not anyone else's. One that America has been overlooking for far too long, with dire (mostly social) long-term consequences.

[garote]

Yeah but, the Average American is engaged in a conflict on their own local terrain, regardless of what you care about. Their placement of the goalposts is merely an indicator of the scope of their conflict.

Furthermore, your "universal centrist" declaration doesn't really hold up when you consider the state of the media in most of the non-English-speaking world. Care to narrow it down?

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

None of this would have mattered that much to me, if the American society wasn't so influential around the world, and was not setting the tone of the global discourse as much as it does.

Most of Europe is non-English-speaking, and I am not sure you could find much ground for criticism of the state of the media there, especially compared to American media. In fact, the modern, democratic world is not necessarily automatically equivalent with the English-speaking world, contrary to what many people in America seem to believe.

[garote]

But if America is setting the tone, doesn't that make it the standard? ;)

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Depends on how much of the tone it is setting. =)

Another question is, should America be the one who is setting the tone. Or should there be just one to be setting the tone. Or why should there be just one tone to be set. But that is a matter of another conversation.

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

Some other players have been trying to join the tone-setting game lately, and this is evidently making America rather unnerved in result.

[garote]

The more the merrier I say!

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Quantity does not necessarily translate into quality. Just sayin.

[garote]

From an evolutionary standpoint, that's exactly what happens ;)

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Although with a tiny caveat: it happens over the course of millions of years.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Indeed, by sheer quantity it's India that's the real center of democracy with turnout that outweighs the entire population of the USA by 3/4:1. And with severe, deep, fundamental problems but then again the USA ain't exactly in a position to throw stones in *that* glass house.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Sure. FOX has been working hard to bring back balance to the Force by counterweighing the bias of the entire liberal segment of the media world - by bringing as much conservative bias to the table as all the liberal bias combined. Sounds like a great job at journalism indeed. Fair & Balanced.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Yes... if you say that the recent resurgence of racist, misogynist, and generally inexcusable discriminatory attitudes and reactionary stances constitutes a renewed conservative challenge to an otherwise progressing (progressive?) society - then sure, I guess we could say a new dynamic is being observed as of late in the public discourse and the media in particular.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Wait, is this chart comparing the actual candidates vs primary frontrunners? This doesn't hold up. It even says 'September-November' and Clinton/Sanders are jammed in there.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I actually got this from a pro-Bernie blog, it's designed to pretend that Sanders is actually electable. The numbers outside of Clinton/Sanders are good.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The numbers are irrelevant, they're comparing apples to oranges! In different date ranges!

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Don't know where you've looked, but all I hear around the Webs is how awesome Sanders is and what terrible human being anyone who might dare to support Clinton is.

(frozen) (no subject)

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Whatever the case with this media thingy, one thing is for sure. As some reactions to this thread have demonstrated, nothing can stir up the bees nest, knock certain types out of their stupor and prompt them to eventually crawl from under whichever woodwork they've been hiding for ages, as someone's assertion gently tickling their ideological sensibilities at some point, somewhere, anywhere on the Internet.

(frozen) (no subject)

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

And your involvement has been just as disappointingly predictable. As will be my reaction: namely, to inform you that your compulsion for subtle (and quite deliberate) behind-the-back trolling, whatever the reason for it, will continue to NOT go unnoticed, and will keep pushing you ever closer to the precipice.

Do not respond to me. In fact, let me freeze this, as I'll keep doing with any other such not-so-subtle personal poke.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Hillary is more or less taking a knee at this point (for you foreigners in the room - it's like the goalie holding the ball, or some guy laying on the ground and pretending to be hurt while the clock runs out up whatever it is the clock does)

Bernie overachieved - but now he's a nuisance to Hillary and her chances - even moreso if that Trump/Sanders debate actually happens (anyone know if it is?) Every day he is still in the race means more negative feelings and soundbites criticizing Hillary and less time for her to undo them. The left leaning media understand this, and is doing their part to minimize the damage. Maybe it isn't ethical, or fair, or part of their job description at all - but it is understandable.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

it's like the goalie holding the ball, or some guy laying on the ground and pretending to be hurt while the clock runs out

You could've just said it's like the pitcher scratching his balls until everyone on the stands falls asleep, and you'd be understood just as well. ;)

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I guess that works too....I was just trying to make my analogy world-friendly!

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

That's such an un-American thing to do!

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Is something merely being understandable sufficient reason to hand-wave it?

[oportet.livejournal.com]

It was hand-waved when only one side of the political spectrum was pointing it out - but now that both ends are in agreement that the media favors the lefts frontrunner - I'd say it at least raises the chances of things being improved.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Sounds koomba-ya-tastic. Improve, how?

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I doubt you could completely get rid of media bias. Best case - maybe they could be pushed to be more subtle about it.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a plan!

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't look for it this round. Probably not 2020 either. 2024 though! We're gonna turn it all around....

[garote]

I think The Media is collectively becoming more sensitive to the backlash generated by the flood of anti-Hillary sentiment from earlier this year. When their clicking audience was convinced that all that abuse was heroic and justified, the media happily fed it back to them. Now that they're faced with reporting "bad news" to that audience, they sensibly shy away from it and pander to a different audience instead. That audience isn't interested in what Bernie's up to, bad or good, so his presence fades.

Like a horde of flies deciding to move from the month-old corpse to the fresh kill upwind, there's no conspiracy amongst flies needed to explain it. Knowing which way the wind blows is sufficient. :D

IMHO, he is still in this campaign because he just plain doesn't know how to stop. There's nothing for him to pivot to that's anywhere near as promising or satisfying than where he is.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Uh.....well, two things:

Lincoln only did that because the Democrats intentionally self-destructed and the consequences of that were a four year bloodbath that got some 720,000 people killed so that's hardly a role model to be endorsed here.

Though mathematically Bernie had a thin chance at best to take the nomination and has spent most of his campaign running to stay in the same place. His candidacy speaks more to a need to reform election laws to strip-mine aspects of the system and overhaul them into something completely different as opposed to anything else.