GET OFF MY PLANE

Are politicians bias against the demonstrated bias of the press? Does it matter?

The Washington Times, along with the N.Y. Post and Dallas Morning News, has been unceremoniously bumped from the Obama plane for his overseas trip. These publications have rejection and one other thing in common: they all three recently endorsed McCain. They’ve been on the campaign trail all along covering him, and their organizations paid for the privilege of traveling with the candidate. Is it a coincidence? A spokesperson for the campaign said that it had little to do with the endorsements of the particular news agencies but a simple case of supply and demand. They did not want to add a second plane, so they had to allow only a portion of the press who requested a seat on the plane. That explanation seems politically smooth and polished to me, but a part of me didn’t even need to hear it. If anyone else was faced with the same dilemma of too many press people and not enough seats, that person would make the same decision- eliminate those who don’t support him. The time is crucial, and a candidate used a public declaration of support for his opponent to weed out who allowed in the highly sough after seats on the plane. What part was suppose to elicit shock: the part where and candidate understood established bias or the part where the campaign acted on it?

Another publication that will go unrepresented is The New Yorker. They are predictably crying revenge for the earlier cover illustration. Read a segment of their reaction below:

Wow. So it’s gonna be like that, is it? Retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate — literally, as in, it carries with it the very real risk of chilling bold, outspoken coverage. Whatever one thinks of the New Yorker cover — that it was clear satire that clearly lampooned ridiculous rumors, that it went way overboard, that it was a comedic misfire — a robust press can’t operate under threat of reprisal for unwelcome items.

Yes, it was a bold, even brazen maneuver from someone who has been so even and unflappable lately. However, math is hard to argue with- 40 journalists allowed on the plane, 200 requests. With days left until the election, can we blame him?

This is really interesting.

In class, we were just talking about whether Obama would make any negative attacks against Palin.  Check out this recent campaign ad.  The end is the best part.

Bias Much?

Americans deserve a free and fair press, one without bias.

This point is made by ABC journalist, Michael Malone. He does not condemn the media’s attitude toward Palin, who he says justifiable deserves such scrutiny. He draws a line between going through her garbage and talking to her daughter’s Facebook friends. However, he cites bias in the fact that the information the public has about Obama is far less than that of McCain. He includes the examples of Obama’s past drug addiction compared to knowledge of Cindy McCain’s problems. Essentially, he says that a huge gap exists in Obama’s known history, which he blames on the media, not the candidate. Additionally, he compares the gaffes of Palin and Biden, indicating that the later are typically buried.

In his dissection of the media’s bias, Malone says the most disgusting act was following the appearance of Joe the Plumber. A normal “everyday” man who wanted to ask a question had his private life torn apart and the remnants held up for all to see by the media. As I see it, “Joe” put himself in a position key to one of the most fierce elections, speculated to yield a record number of voters. He did it to make a point, while not entirely honest. He may not have anticipated the depth of the media’s dig into his life and financial information. The actions of the media may not have been entirely fair, but “Joe” has become a tool of the McCain campaign, an unwilling one at that, based on the fact that he was a no show at a recent McCain rally.

Following our class notion that the media is about being a successful entity, Malone discusses the trend that the journalists are not vigorously uncovering the stories surrounding Obama. His ultimate answer is that reporters and journalists do cover the stories; the fact that they don’t make it to the eyes of the public is due to the editors. When stories make it to the mainstream, journalists, who are really only human, are not immune to the likelihood that their opinions and views will creep into the writing.

In a panel discussion from Fox News, reporters discuss media bias. Specifically, they have issue with the lack of probing into Obama’s associations. My question is when is it the media’s job to uncover and report issues versus exploiting insignificant ones with difficult to verify details? When does it go too far?

The public is both the victor and the victim in this media mess. We are subjected to what they are willing to tell us, without knowing what was cut by the editors. However, we are always able to find another source, one we feel is more worthy of our trust and ratings. Those other sources are only a click of the remote or mouse away.

Check out this clip below, which demonstrates the continuing bias of Fox News.

Division in the Party

Sometimes I feel I should just sit back and watch the election with a bag of popcorn in hand. It’s just that entertaining, and sometimes, that predictable (if it weren’t really a national election).  Just recently in class, we discussed the possibility that Palin’s brightest future was not on McCain’s ticket but still in Washington. The New York Post has reported on her turning on her running mate, ignoring her aids at times, and altogether “bucking her own ticket.” Some examples of her “going rogue” include her support of a constitutional amendment regarding same-sex marriages, on which McCain disagrees, her desire to bring up the relationship of Rev. Wright and Obama, and her ignoring the aids at a Colorado event by giving an impromptu address the media.

Again, she has dominated the news this week with her $150,000 wardrobe provided by her party and her offbeat statement on Saturday that Obama’s tax plan is akin to communism. She is in the public more than any of the presidential candidates, but her actions are pulling apart the Republican party. She may not be the brightest bulb when appearing in front of a reporter for an interview, but she still is an intelligent woman. Could she be deciding to carve out her own path away from McCain’s to secure her future in politics?

The New York Post says that she may be distancing herself from the sinking ticket as to not be labeled a scapegoat. The media once again got the upper hand on her with the wardrobe story. She may have attempted to pull away from the media and have the relationship exist primarily between her and the voters. However, in reality, the process simply doesn’t work that way. The story came out, and the main issue is that Palin let it get to her: “Palin showed how much that gaffe got under her skin yesterday at a rally in Sioux City, Iowa, telling the crowd she’d stepped off the plane and donned a warm, cream-colored jacket. ‘And it’s my own jacket,’ she said.”

According to a recent CNN article, she is not only “going rogue,” but she is also looking out for her own future. An aid sourced for the article says that she is like a diva, who is more concerned for herself than the ticket. The aid theorized that she sees herself as the next party leader and is attempting to secure that future for herself.

Endorsements

What does it mean for a campaign when a local newspaper endorses a particular candidate? The Hartford Courant has followed in the footsteps of Colin Powell and has even used a majority of his reasoning.

But “Republican Sen. John McCain has failed to persuade us he could wake the nation from this seven-year nightmare” of the loss of 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001, 4,000 American troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the greatest economic threat since the Great Depression.

But most troubling, from The Courant’s perspective, is the Republican candidate’s choice of Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Is endorsing a candidate a way for the media to publicize and legitimize its bias? Or, is The Hartford Courant on the same level as any other politician or celebrity, from which the public eagerly awaits the opinion. This newspaper (and others) is also covering a different kind of endorsement for McCain. Apparently, Al-Qaida supports McCain on its website for his ability to “continue the failing march of his predecessor.” Interesting….

A fine line exists between endorsements and advertisements; the line is pretty much comprised of money. As far as the game of advertising goes, Obama is way ahead. Those who support McCain are finding it hard to market their product without attacking the competition. Of course, some advertisements don’t cost Obama anything. Those are the ones done by the aforementioned celebrities. What I find interesting about this ad is that the celebrities, a group from which Obama already has a great deal of support, all look similar to some extent. Maybe not ALL, but the vast majority look like they come from one gender, race, and age demographic. Are they trying to reach particular people?

What happens when you have a double negative?

Within the scope of advertising, negative ads cannot be ignored. Take this with a grain of salt, but a college publication has an article that addresses the effectiveness of negative ads. While the public may be growing weary of issue dodging and back-biting, the road of negativity has in the past led to the White House. In 1988, Bush ran two negative campaign ads against Dukakis, who won only ten states come election time. The Swift Boat ads are still fresh in everyone’s memory from Kerry’s lost election. However, negative ads don’t get much lower than The Daisy Girl in Johnson’s 1964 campaign against Goldwater.

The article says that less experienced and less known candidates are more likely to be targeted with negative ads. The public knows less about them, so the truth can become a casualty. According the writer, “The reason these negative ads work is because, in order to fight back, a politician must ‘explain’ why the initial claim is misleading and then counter with a stronger message, which is very difficult to do in 28 seconds.”

However, negative ads may not have the same victorious result for McCain as they have had for other candidates. Newsweek writer Andrew Romano says in a recent article that he received an email from Obama’s “Rapid Response” squad entitled “Flailing.” The email cited ten negative attacks from McCain ranging from attacks that sound like socialism to Obama’s sudden shift in support for the Devil Rays when campaigning in Tampa. Romano explains this peculiar action from Obama’s supporter: “As weird as the maneuver seems–I mean,”Don’t Spread Attacks on Your Own Candidate” is like, Campaign Politics 101–Sevugan and Co.’s decision reflects a fundamental reality of the 2008 presidential race as it enters its final fortnight: by going negative, McCain has been hurting himself more than he’s been hurting Obama.”

A negative ad here or there is expected and understood. However, McCain’s tactic differs in the sheer amount of his negative advertising. At this point, the negativity and finger pointing begin to look like smoke and mirrors to distract the audience from the important issues.

Since I’ve been dwelling on negativity, I’ll end with something more lighthearted. Check the ad below for something a bit different.

The Health Question

The Washington Post published an article this weekend implying that McCain is not healthy enough to take on the presidency. A difference definitely exists between ageism and skepticism over someone’s ability to lead with questionable cancer history. The federal government has been at odds with groups of physicians over this issue. The physicians say he has a 60% chance of dying of cancer, while the federal government says it’s no more than 10%. The catalyst for the health question is the underlying theme of secrecy. Carefully selected journalists were given three hours to review over 1,000 pages of his records, which only covered eight years. On the other hand, some have argued that the disclosure was significantly more revealing than the one-page doctor’s note fro Obama’s camp.

Both of Obama’s parents died young of cancer. Why is the media capitalizing on McCain’s health issues when Obama still struggles with smoking? For one, the media loves to uncover what appears to be important but secreted, such as McCain’s health state. Another reason is the fact that his age intensifies the risk and magnitude of his health problems. However, the most important reason is quite simple. If McCain is elected and cannot survive his term, the alternative is simply incomprehensible to the public. For reasons so obvious and too numerous to mention, America does not want the even slight possibility of Palin as president.

Perhaps the scrutiny is unfair in comparison to the attention paid to the much younger candidate. However, as the video below points out, running for president means that your privacy is compromised in the name of keeping the public informed. This prying is not about his family or marriage; it’s into his capability to lead. As Cheyenne points out in her post, Obama’s running mate and second in command is much more prepared and qualified to step into this role. Palin would be overwhelmed and unprepared for a situation that circumstantially is more likely. His politically driven selection makes the public weary of the notion of what if.

According to an ABC/Washington Post poll (the credibility of which I have addressed in an earlier post) says that 48% percent of voters are concerned about McCain’s age and the same percentage felt that he was a risky candidate. Not surprisingly, The Washington Post would publish a worrisome story on his health. It’s not ageism; it’s playing to your audience.

A Vicious Cycle

The media loves polls. Numbers, which appear to be concrete, can give the impression of being factual when they can be bred from bias. Newsbusters wrote about the impressive and apparently questionable nine-point lead that ABC and Washington Post polls reported for Obama. The numbers were newsworthy, which leads to a vicious cycle of the media’s hand in the reporting and handling of these iffy statistics. A segment of Rich Noyes’s post is below:

The ABC poll was so thrilling to journalists, it was also part of the political discussion on CBS and NBC that same morning. CBS’s Harry Smith confronted Republican Karen Hughes: “We look at brand new poll numbers this morning, nationwide poll numbers, and all of a sudden Barack Obama has jumped out to this nine-point lead.”

Polling is ultimately competitive, and the nature of the results is directly related to the reliability and trustworthiness of the poll’s source. ABC has lost some credibility; MSNBC reported that the Republicans were outweighed by 16 points in the ABC/Washington Post poll. The question is which one is more important to the media- accuracy or newsworthiness. Even CBS and NBC reported ABC’s poll. The issue that Noyes points out is the potential for a trend in the already liberal media to report in a “breaking news” way a surge in Obama’s popularity.

People tend to- and I certainly do- surround themselves with those who share their opinions because they get along with them better. Living in Connecticut and attending a liberal arts school does not expose me to they way conservatives or Republicans view McCain. Because many are aware that their opinion may not be the majority viewpoint, they are drawn to polls. I, for example, and very intrigued by the play that Florida, which has traditionally been Bush country and primarily red, is as yet undecided. I “know” it’s undecided because PollTrack.com has it as a grey color, meaning too close to call. These polls and the websites that calculate and track multiple surveys are unfortunately my only source of actual fact. When ABC has the polling hiccup that it did, I question all of the numbers, which makes me want to ignore everything but the November result.

Lightening Up

For months, the media has been poking fun at the candidates, whether the jabs were funny or just plain low. However, Thursday evening, Obama and McCain tossed back and forth jokes at each other’s and their own expense. The two hopefuls spoke at the 63rd annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner. The refreshing show of humor could be a sign of changes to come. McCain is said to be running one of the most ruthless and nastiest campaigns in recent history. But, in recent weeks, he and his running mate have been showing a somewhat softer side. Palin recently defended Obama by saying that he truly loved this country. In her own move toward humor, Palin will appear on Saturday Night Live. Palin and Fey will be on the same TV screen without editing; entertainment centers in every home are in danger of bursting into flames.

Clips from the dinner are below:

I saved my favorite for last. Below, Obama also jokes about the media.

I think the public has been waiting to see another side of these two candidates for quite some time. And, objectively, the roast made McCain seem more comfortable and personable, something he desperately needed after the debate. Their appearance was a boost for both camps. Humor is a powerful tool, especially in politics because so much is based on likability. Check out Mary’s blog; for more humorous clips.

Nate Silver and the Numbers Game

Nate Silver is about as close to an expert on the power of numbers as one could get in this election. He changed his original arena from baseball to politics. According to Newsweek, “in 2007, Silver’s algorithm enraged at least half of Chicago when it said the White Sox—2005 champs—would post a 72–90 record.” During the primaries, he was an anonymous blogger on his website, fivethirtyeight.com. On it, he accurately predicted the surprising outcome that Hillary Clinton would lose North Carolina by 17% and win Indiana by 2%. When this came true, the result was a devastating one, from which Clinton never recovered. Also, the secretive blogger became an icon, and in May, he revealed his name, which meant a lot to baseball fanatics. Silver has said that politics and baseball are both driven by data. However, the substantial difference between the two would be, of course, polls.

To predict the much-anticipated November result, Silver uses census data to balance out the polls. He predicts that Obama will win; he also admits that he is a supporter. Because the Newsweek article is ancient in terms of media and politics (from June), I have pulled the quote of today’s standing from his website:

Still lots of blue in that table. But this was at least a day in which things did not appear to get any worse for John McCain. McCain improved his position in three of the seven tracking polls; Obama gained in one, and the other three were flat. In most of the state polling — like the set of CNN polls for instance — the trends were basically flat from the last time in the polls were in the field. That’s certainly better for McCain than Obama continuing to gain ground. (By the way, we use the version of the CNN polling with third-party candidates included, which is why our numbers may differ from other sources).

The New York Times shows Obama ahead by 9% with a 2% margin of error according to the US Gallop Poll. Using the same poll on the same day, Silver has Obama ahead by 8%. Polls are powerful because just like any other number, they can be manipulated, held up as verifiable truth, or refuted. The opinion has a great deal to do with the preference of the person reading them. Silver’s website differs in that he uses in depth analysis of many different sources. Most voters don’t search out different polls unless they’re unhappy with the result of the first one they come across. Before familiarizing myself with Nate Silver and his website, I was one of many who would say, “well that’s great that my candidate is ahead, but what do those numbers really mean?”

Essentially, to the average voter, the polls represent how each candidate is fairing in the campaign at the current time. Almost three weeks is plenty of time for one to simply run out the clock and another to accomplish a significant turnaround. Interestingly enough, polls, however reliable or bias, can be easily found linked to and supported by media sources- CNN, The New York Times, and even Fox News. People trust the poll attached to their most trusted news source. The polls are news….. but how factual is one poll? What is the gap between fact and opinion?