Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections

Rasmussen Reports has released a survey which shows that 55% of voters believe that media coverage of the election is more biased this year than in the last presidential election. Here are some highlights.

* Although 55% of voters believe election coverage is more biased, this depends upon party affiliation. 79% of Republicans perceive greater bias, but only 36% of Democrats do. 54% of independent voters view the coverage as more biased.

* With respect to individual networks, the pollster presents data for MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. Here are those statistics:

MSNBC -- 51% biased towards Obama; 28% unbiased; 5% biased towards McCain

CNN -- 46% biased towards Obama; 33% unbiased; 6% biased towards
McCain

Fox -- 39% biased towards McCain; 42% unbiased; 8% biased towards
Obama.

My thoughts: First, the people who view Fox as favoring Obama and MSNBC as rooting for McCain need to turn in their voter registration cards! All kidding aside, I believe that, overall, media reporting of the election has indeed leaned in favor of Obama, but this depends upon the network, individual journalist or reporter, etc. Media bias, however, has gone against many Democrats in the past. Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis, for example, were skewered by unthoughtful reporting. And Hillary Clinton was brutalized during the Democratic primaries. So Republicans need to let go of the leftwing conspiracy language.

In addition to unfairly portraying Democrats in the past, the media have also helped Republicans -- including President Bush! Remember that the media were literally "in the tank" during and leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post, two constant sources of Republican ire, later admitted that they refused to publish some antiwar material, relegated articles critical of the war to less popular sections (i.e., something other than the front page), or published pro-war stories without seriously scrutinizing their factual claims. If the media can exhibit bias covering a matter so extraordinarily important as this country's decision to invade and slaughter people in another country, then it is not irrational to believe that they can also show bias in a presidential election. Accordingly, when Democrats and members of the media deny the existence of pro-Obama bias in this stage of the election and during the Democratic primaries, they come across as disingenuous.

Perhaps the media are trying to compensate for their shamefully uncritical treatment of Bush leading up to the war, by bashing the war, Bush, McCain and any other Republican. Guilt is a powerful instrument. I cannot accept the narrative that, collectively, the media are suddenly leftist. Regardless of the cause, my fellow Democrats had better enjoy our positive stature in the media while it lasts. History has shown that media bias does not remain on one side of the coin.

Message from the Professor: If you enjoy the commentary on this site, please subscribe to Dissenting Justice. You have the option of receiving daily email digests of blog essays or to access blog material in your favorite feed reader (or both!).

Say What? Obama and Bush Agree On 20 Major Issues, CNN Article Finds

Tara Wall, a reporter for the Washington Times, has written an article for CNN (Wall is also a special correspondent for CNN) arguing that Obama and Bush have agreed on 20 major policy issues. Here's a link to the Wall's analysis. Among the areas of agreement, Wall lists:

* teaching abstinence to children

* capital punishment

* the bailout legislation and tax cuts (for 95% of the
population)

* Bush's energy bill

* faith-based initiatives (something Democrats
criticized)

* FISA (the legislation authorizing wiretapping, something he
previously opposed)

* opposition to same-sex marriage

* Supreme Court's ruling invalidating DC gun ban and finding
individual right to bear arms protected by constitution (many historians had argued that this was a right held by states - not individuals).

The problem with lists like this one is that they do not allow for nuance. The bailout legislation, for example, went through several changes before Congress approved it, and although Obama opposes same-sex marriage, he has not proposed a constitutional amendment banning it (like Bush did). But the list is interesting, and frankly, I'm surprised that it took this long for someone to analyze the ways in which Obama and Bush have agreed in the past. Interesting reading.

CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate

According to most media accounts, last night's vice presidential debate was a thriller. Sarah Palin received much of the focus due to her lackluster performances in recent television interviews. But I stated in a blog post prior to the debate that pundits should not dismiss Palin, because many of her failings of late could result from her lacking the experience engaging the national media. Also, many Republicans said that Palin had been overly handled but that they were now "freeing Sarah." Well, she certainly seemed more comfortable, poised, and well versed last night, just like she did in some of her earlier outings. Biden pulled in a great performance as well -- given his tremendous experience.

Several polls have emerged since the debate which try to tell viewers "who won." All of these polls are hopelessly flawed.

CNN/Opinion Research

CNN declares on its website that "Debate Poll Says Biden Won, Palin Beat Expectations." The specifics of the poll show that 51% of those polled thought that Biden did better, while 36% gave the nod to Palin. But the poll does not disclose the party affiliation or candidate preferences of the individuals surveyed. Evaluating performance in a debate that lacked any real "knockout" punch will inevitably turn on partisan preferences. So, this poll is absolutely useless without information concerning the ideology and politics of the individuals evaluating the candidates.

This same problem plagued CNN's polling of the presidential debate. Then, the headlines declared Obama the winner, and the national media reprinted the results widely. But if you actually read the full article, rather than the headlines as many people do, the pollster actually conceded that the survey polled far more Democrats than Republicans and that if one adjusted for party affiliation, the result was a "tie." Remarkably, the latest CNN poll does not give us any information regarding the party affiliation or candidate preferences of those surveyed. It simply declares Biden the winner.

CBS News

CBS News also released a poll concluding that Biden won the debate. On the surface, this poll seems to avoid CNN's mistake of not telling the reader the candidate preferences of the individuals polled. Why? The poll purports to provide the opinions of "uncommitted" voters.

Well, like a good lawyer, I read the fine print, and I found that uncommitted includes voters who are truly undecided and voters who have already chosen a candidate, but who "could still change their minds." So, some of the individuals polled are already leaning towards a candidate. The poll fails to provide a breakdown of their choices.

Studies show that people tend not to change their minds this late in an election cycle. So many of these so-called uncommitted individuals are probably sold on a candidate and probably thought that candidate won the debate. Because CBS News does not reveal what portion of the uncommitted voters actually preferred a candidate or the party affiliation of those polled, it is difficult to isolate bias in this survey. Accordingly, the poll is worthless.

Drudge Report and FoxNews

I have seen several websites citing to polls on the Drudge Report and FoxNews.Com. Unlike CNN and CBS, however, these media outlets have not officially released the results of the polls. The Drudge Report poll shows that Palin won by a landslide, while the FoxNews.Com polls shows that Biden won.

This category is very easy to dissect, mainly because both polls are online surveys. First, the polls are just as bad as the CNN and CBS polls because they fail to provide information about the candidate preferences of those who participated. Also, web polls in general are highly biased and inaccurate. You have to own a computer to participate (which could exclude older or poor people). But more relevant in this instance, you have to read the particular web page that conducted the poll in order to vote. Also, it is commonly known that people often "flood" webpages that they usually do not visit in order to influence the results of online polls. Thus, these polls fail to provide random samples and are thefore easily dismissed.

So Who Really Won?

The debate was very interesting, and I think objective commentators, to the extent that such exist, would find that Palin exceeded expectations and connected better to voters in terms of her style, but that Biden was more seasoned and specific. Beyond that, the person you wanted to win probably won. So who needs the polls anyway?

Message from the Professor: If you enjoy the commentary on this site, please subscribe to Dissenting Justice. You have the option of receiving daily email digests of blog essays or to access blog material in your favorite feed reader (or both!).