From: msmiller@Rational.COM (Mark Miller)
Subject: Re: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
Organization: Rational
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:31:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.030451.26863@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov7.100523.147@kenyon.edu> turney@kenyon.edu writes:
|> >THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON.	
|> 
|> >Consider these points.
|> 
|> >The media went after Clinton in the primary.  He took everything that they
|> >could throw at him by just smiling and shrugging.  The media then decided that
|> >since he passed their "rite of passage", he must be the best man.  Since the
|> >convention - he was protrayed as the winner.  Sam Donaldson even told the
|> >public that they were stupid if they did not vote for the obvious winner.
|> 
|> I fail to see how Sam Donaldson speaks for "the media."

I lost track of all the media "pro's" who called this election weeks, or
even months, before it ended. When a "respected" newsperson, from whom
people are used to getting _facts_, gets on there and gives _opinions_,
it has an effect. Time was these were called "editorials" and at least
it was clear where opinion started, and fact ended.

|> >Bush, on the other hand, fought back at the media.  In turn, the media
|> >portrayed him as being behind, in trouble, and having difficulty catching up.
|> >They sealed the fate of Bush by showing the Iran Contra memo right before the
|> >election.
|> 
|> He *was* behind.  That's why they portrayed him as being behind.  Geez.
|> 
|> They showed the Iran-Contra memo right before the election because it
|> was RELEASED (as part of the Weinberger indictment) RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

But was he as far behind as we were shown all along? When they pulled that
trick near the end of using "likely" voters, all of a sudden its a 1 point
race and the "throw your vote away" on Perot logic took hold. Now, the
question is: was it always _really_ a 1 point race, and the media only
showed us these numbers to screw Perot? Or was it always really a 10
point race and they fudged the "likely" crap for a reason? Because there
were other polls about who people _preferred_ (vs. who they'd vote for)
whcih showed Perot ahead in that regard.

|> >Perot would not submit to the media's "rite of passage" and lectured
|> >them for not doing their job and concentrating only on issues critical to the
|> >survival of our country - as opposed to issues that improved their ratings and
|> >revenues.  In turn, the media branded Perot as unstable, paranoid, and crazy.  
|> 
|> No, they portrayed him as unstable, paranoid, and crazy because he's
|> been a conspiracy theorist for years and just came out with his most
|> ridiculous conspiracy theory yet.

What? The doctored pictures? Hell, 20/20 (I think) showed people doing
this. What's so farfetched? This is the same bunch of folks who brought
us Watergate, afterall - and everyone, of course, beleived that they
investigated Clinton's family.

|> As for "critical issues," the ONLY issue Perot talked about was the
|> deficit, and he didn't even do that very well.  He ignored most critical
|> issues, mostly because he had no plan to deal with them.

Yeah, right.

Perot went right at the media and they didn't like it. He, or anyone
else for that matter, is perfectly within his rights to tell a reporter
that something which happened on his private property is "none of their
business". Oh, if you don't answer a reporter he'll just write whatever
he feels like? So, who is right in this case? Perot for defending his
privacy, or the reporter for threatening to slander him - even if it is
an implied threat?
 
|> >Finally, media polls are self fulfilling prophesies.  Many Americans think for
|> >themselves, but many in our society are what I call "bandwagon people".  They
|> >will only support and be part of a "winner".  If you don't believe this, go to
|> >the football game of a team with a losing record and check the size of the
|> >crowd.
|> 
|> That's irrelevant.  The fact that people don't feel like watching a team
|> they know is going to lose doesn't mean they're not thinking.  Do you go
|> watch awful movies, just to prove you aren't a bandwagon person?  Do you
|> eat food you don't like?  Of course not.  You eat or watch or vote for
|> something that's good.  (or less bad than the alternatives.)
|> 
|> The polls report what people think.  Do you have evidence that they
|> cause people to vote differently, except for strategic voting?

If people vote for "something that's good," and the polls are they way
they determine "what's good", well, you get the rest.

We live in an age of insta-polls where being in the "top-10" list is how
people judge quality. Sure its stoopid - but that's the way it is in the
USA-Today sort of world we live in.

And if you believe the polls, they you must have seen (and believed) the
one which showed that if people believed Perot stood a chance of winning,
he'd have won the election. It's all perception. When these media dwarks
get on night after night and say "Perot has no chance" and then back it
up with fancy charts and graphs, people beleive it.

|> >Showing polls of the "likely voters", 28% of the voters, promoted Clinton as 
|> >the winner.  Polls of unlikely voters, 72% of the voters, were not shown
|> >because they did not show Clinton as the winner.  One wonders how the election
|> >would have ended if Bush or Perot would have been proclaimed as the winner by
|> >the media causing the hordes of "bandwagon" voters to shift their support.  The
|> >strong showing of Perot, despite their character assasination campaign, shocked
|> >the media.  19,000,000 Americans actually thought and acted for themselves!
|>        
|> Likely voters are not 28% of voters.  That would be stupid, since many
|> more people than that vote.   Polls of unlikely voters weren't shown
|> because the idea of a poll is to give some indication of who is going to
|> win.  Unlikely voters don't affect that.

But that's (as I understand it) what was done.

|> And they didn't show polls of likely voters until a few weeks before the
|> election.  They showed registered voters before that.  And all polls
|> showed the same thing.  That Clinton was ahead with Perot a distant third.

And why do you think they suddenly changed the polling method? And why
didn't they publicize ALL the numbers when they changed? "We didn't want
to confuse people." Come on, the obvious questions when you show "likely"
voters is: "What about the unlikely voters, and how many of them are 
there?" But - ohhh nooo - we don't want THAT to be broadcast.

|> What you're saying is that if the media lied and said that someone else
|> was ahead in the polls, someone else might have moved ahead?  Now *that's* 
|> lying instead of news.

They didn't lie - they simply decided what to show and what not to show
in order to get the desired effect. Imagine, for instance, if the Wall
Street Journal made headlines out of every stock that went down and
didn't print the stocks that went up. People would think the market was
crashing. They didn't lie, they simply withheld information. They don't
HAVE to print EVERYTHING, do they?

|> The reason the media was shocked at Perot's showing was that 3rd party
|> candidates in the past always lost 1/2 their vote in the election booth.
|> The media assumed that was because of strategic voting, but it seems
|> that it might have had more to do with the fact that they never had the
|> money to get their message across at the end of the campaign.

And they weren't Ross Perot. Do not discount the man's leadership - it is
a natural gift.

|> >The media, under the constitution, is free to do what they want - to whom they
|> >want - with no recourse.  They have abused that privilege in the pursuit of
|> >profit.  Americans must realize that "news" on the media is no longer "news" - 
|> >it is "newsertainment".  It is directed to achieve ratings and revenues, not to
|> >objectively inform the American people on issues critical to our country.  
|> >Americans, be skeptical of everything you see or hear.
|> 
|> Well, duh.  Anyone who doesn't know this is an idiot anyway.
|> News has NEVER been news.   And it isn't a "privilege;" it's a right.

No. The media has changed over time. It wasn't always as crappy as
it is now. The media has no respect for anyone anymore, let alone
anyone's privacy. They are too self-impressed, somehow confusing
the importance of delivering the news with putting their name on
the bylines.

As far as I'm concerned, the media broke their trust with the
American people during this election. They have an obligation to
us - to bring us the facts, all the facts, and that's it. When
the public stops believing what the media says (as is now
happening) what good is it? What use is a free press if half of
what you see and hear is total crap, or if they withhold facts?
And when we get to the point where the public ceases to see a
free press as valuable because it has so abused its power, then
it will just go away.

This is serious, scary stuff.

|> David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
|> Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.

I can't stop thinking about it - and its making me sick.

	-MSM

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Mark S. Miller                                     msmiller@Rational.COM
"Life is a 4-letter word."                        msmiller@world.std.com
[ insert tedious disclaimer drivel here ]                           IV-Q
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections