You heard about "that poll," the one that shows Hillary trailing the GOP pygmies? But did you hear about the SERIOUS poll that shows the opposite?
>
"The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to, you know, practice journalism."
--Greg Sargent, in a post today on his media-centric blog, The Horse's Mouth
These days it doesn't matter what the subject is, from global warming to political polling, there seems to be a "conventional wisdom" that is (a) promoted by the demons of Wingnuttia and (b) utterly randomly linked to reality. And of course the press--with its famous "liberal bias"--now functions 24/7 as a service provider for Wingnut International.
I'm sure you've heard about the Zogby poll that purports to show Hillary Clinton losing to all of the major Republican candidates, in wish fulfillment of the Clinton-hating psychosis of Wingnuttia. Greg Sargent disposes of this nonsense neatly, with emphasis on the slavish adherence of the lickspittle media to the Tales of Wingnuttia:
Media Lavishes Attention On Bogus Internet Poll Showing Hillary Losing To Repubs -- And Ignores Reputable Poll Finding Opposite
Ladies and gentlemen, a tale of two polls.
Yesterday two polling firms -- Zogby and Gallup -- released surveys of the presidential race that offered strikingly different conclusions. The Zogby poll found that Hillary is trailing five leading GOP candidates in general election matchups. The Gallup Poll, by contrast, found that Hillary, and to a lesser degree Obama, has a slight to sizable lead over the top GOP contenders.
A couple of other things that distinguish these two polls: The Zogby one is an online poll, a notoriously unreliable method, while the Gallup one is a telephone poll. And, as Charles Franklin of Pollster.com observed yesterday, the Zogby poll is completely out of sync with multiple other national polls finding Hillary with a lead over the GOP candidates. The Zogby poll actually found that Mike Huckabee is leading Hillary in a national matchup. The Gallup findings were in line with most other surveys.
I don't need to tell you which poll got all the media attention. Do I?
The Zogby survey was covered repeatedly on CNN, earned coverage from MSNBC, Fox News, and Reuters and was covered by multiple other smaller outlets.
By contrast, I can't find a single example of any reporter or commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI. While the Zogby poll was mentioned by multiple reporters and pundits, the only mentions the Gallup poll got on TV were from Hillary advisers who had to bring it up themselves on the air in order to inject it into the conversation.
You could argue that the Zogby poll got all the coverage it did precisely because it is out of sync with multiple other polls, and thus is news. But the truth is that the reporters and editors at the major nets know full well that the Zogby poll is bunk -- yet they breathlessly covered it anyway.
Worse, the Zogby poll was covered with few mentions either of its dubious methodology or of the degree to which its findings don't jibe with other surveys. Bottom line: The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to, you know, practice journalism.
There's really nothing to add, except to wonder: Why? How much longer, o Lord?
[Provisional answers: (1) Because so many people, for one reason or another, truly don't get that "reality" is not the same thing as "what I wish was true," and in fact the two often bear no resemblance to one another. (2) Until either (1) changes or some way is found to undo the chokehold of the anti-realityites.]
#
Labels: Gallup, Greg Sargent, Hillary Clinton, Wingnuttia, Zogby
5 Comments:
[Provisional answers: (1) Because so many people, for one reason or another, truly don't get that "reality" is not the same thing as "what I wish was true," and in fact the two often bear no resemblance to one another. (2) Until either (1) changes or some way is found to undo the chokehold of the anti-realityites.]
Jane H. and Glenn Greenwald have been going a long way toward making one of those anti-realityites and his enablers very uncomfortable today.
http://sacdcweb01.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/27/the_correction/index.html
I love Greg's work, but I have to disagree with him when he says, "...reporters and editors at the major nets know full well that the Zogby poll is bunk."
I would bet a year's worth of mortgage payments that the vast majority of reporters and editors wouldn't have the faintest fucking clue about polling methodology. To them, any poll is as valid as any other poll, so hey, let's go with the one whose results we like anyhow.
The final result—a pronounced bias against any Democratic candidate— isn't any different, but the road there is paved with blithering ignorance rather than actual knowledge about what makes a poll accurate or inaccurate.
thanks for bringing this up. I heard the "Hillary-is-unelectable narrative” on the radio yesterday and I couldn’t believe my ears. All I hear about from Republican talking heads is how lame their candidates are ... and yet, somehow in this political climate, the war, global warming, footsies in bathroom stalls ... and the chimp at the wheel, the media plays along with this bullshit story.
I would think that at this point that not only could Hillary beat the Republicans ... at this point a cross dressing gay black Mexican midget Muslim with a speech impediment could beat the Republicans.
I "hope" you are all correct and just not "wishing" this isn't as racist and bigoted a country as I think it is, and Hillary AND Obama are unelectable in 2008.
That said, Dr. Tex I think anyone who ISN'T "a cross dressing gay black Mexican midget Muslim with a speech impediment could beat the Republicans" as long as they aren't female. LOVE to be proved wrong.
I AM biased. Hillary voted for the war and recent Iran res. Obama is far to intelligent and well-spoken (ala Adlai Stevenson) to be president.
My bet is on Edwards and/or Dodd with the rest making a WONDERFUL cabinet, particularly Kucinich as the first Secretary of Peace.
TRex. CONGRATS on your graduation AND new blog.
trexstasy.blogspot.com
" as long as they aren't female"
I don't know, Mr. Bil, if the choice that comes before the American people is between a woman that wears pants ... or a man that wears dresses, like my former asshole mayor ... I think the Clinton dynasty has a pretty good shot at it.
Post a Comment
<< Home