From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Anyone else notice the polls?  (MEDIA BIAS)
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:28:35 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <crb2.719249329@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>which means that going into the debate, at least by ABC's poll
>Clinton only lead by HALF what he did a week earlier and NOT
>a 'double digit' lead.

The fact that several polls showed Clinton with a double digit
lead, whereas ABC's did not, could be explained in many
non-sinister ways; including variations in sampling
population size, different wording of the questions
in the poll, and just plain old incompetence.

>I saw the general trend down on the clinton line and the general
>up on the bush line were about the same day, was that the VP
>debate? or did I miss something?

Probably.  Most of the polls I've seen IN THE PAST WEEK
show a slight decline in Clinton's numbers which is nearly
equal to a slight increase in Perot's numbers, with
Bush's numbers almost equal.

>The funniest thing about the whole ordeal (more funny than
>noone even reporting what going the other way would have been
>seen in a drastic movement in the polls) was the commentator
>said (as the graph popped up briefly) that other polls
>probably differ, but this is what ABC found, and to remember
>that with a 4% margin of error the Clinton lead could be as 
>much as 13%!  My immediate thought was 'now that's grabbing
>for air!', because the 4% error ALSO means that Bush oculd
>be in the lead!  Sheez...the news is really turning into
>a no-holds barred, we're gonna do anything it takes to get
>Clinton elected, silly looking group.

No, just an excuse that looking at any single poll is
not as reliable as looking at several polls over 
several days or weeks.

>I think it was Clinton's advisor (James Cam..??) that told
>one of them last night that 'people don't need you to tell
>them what to think about what the candidates said, they
>heard the questions and answers just like you did' and 
>another person on c-span (a caller) responded to a media
>guy (who had just said that the reason they told people
>what had just happened was that they 'could add insight'
>to what was said) by telling him that if he and the
>rest of the media was that much smarter than the rest of 
>the Americans, maybe we should change the system so only
>they could vote..that would keep us stupid people out
>of the process....
>
>I think anyone who could watch the major networks and not
>see some bias is really out there, farther than the buses
>go.

No bias.  Just a predisposition toward sensationalism,
controversy, and high energy events.  After last night's
debate (Number 2), EVERY commentator I heard from a TV
station or network, and almost every newspaper journalist,
complained that the debate was not exciting enough
(not enough "confrontation", not enough "heated exchanges,
etc.).  OTOH, most of the non-journalist types thought
the debate 2 format was just fine, in that the audience
got to ask the questions that were on their minds.
Maybe not exciting, but more informative.

The media have their own agenda, but it's economic
and not political.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,talk.poltics.elections