Letters to the Editor
-
Gee, another juiced poll in favor of Democrats. What a surprise.
From the poll....
"This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone April 12-15, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,141 adults, including an oversample of African Americans, for a total of 206 black respondents."
Anybody care to guess the percentage of Democrats exceeding Republicans? Lord knows that won't be made public. But as Glenn has pointed out in other less complimentary survey situations, there is this poll finding....
85% of respondents believe that extraterrestrial civilizations are visiting the Earth
http://exopoliticsjournal.com/vol-2/vol-2-1-Survey.htm Heh.
-
Meet the press
I think Tim Russert is a really interesting example, specifically because as a regular MTP viewer, Tim has always struck me as someone who loves polling data, both analyzing it in the roundtable and using it to question his guests. My impression, however, is that recently, with the exception of discussing the 2008 presidential race, he has quoted poll numbers far less-I don't have time to do more than a quick look back at some transcripts but on March 4, he used poll numbers to very aggressively question Lindsey Graham on Iraq, but since then, really nothing (in fact on his March 18 Iraq discussion, it's one of his guests who quotes poll numbers). Seems to me like they're going out of their way to minimize the use of poll data altogether.
-
I agree with Paul Dirks
...and I have to wonder how much of it is just personal and how much is the GOP's innate sexism (their platform, values, etc.). It must be pretty hard on some of those guys to hear Pelosi described as the most powerful woman in the country (or in the world). Especially because they really didn't think the gavel was going to change hands. And to think how high she is in the line of succession... Imagine what it must feel like to try and wrap their brains around that one. Unbelievable! And that she could even seem more presidential than the president? Insufferable!
-
random points
Paul Dirks: I'm sure Digby or someone would be able to explain this better than I ever could. Pelosi is the first female Speaker -- a woman in a position of great power, and third in line to the presidency. This scares most of the media elite because, as the Imus flap has demonstrated quite ably, most of the media elite are misogynistic and/or racist (or at the least, will prop up and support those of their own who are).
shooter242: "85% of respondents believe that extraterrestrial civilizations are visiting the Earth"
And if that's not crazy enough for you: 95% of respondents believe that their is a higher power in the universe, whether you call it God or divine intelligence or something else.
Neither belief is currently provable. And yet there are more unexplained aerial sightings than there are seas parting of their own volition these days. Extrapolate.
-
No, Shooter, The Poll Was Not Juiced
Shooter, you enthusiastic little scumbag propagandist you, the reason you do an oversample of say, black voters, is so you have a larger sample size of that subgroup and therefore a lower margin of error when you say how the oversampled subgroup responded in the poll. BUT when overall numbers are reported, the oversample is weighted back down to its proper proportions. No juice.
Dude, being a liar is disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
Shooter Should Be Banned - Seriously
You know, Glenn, I hate to say it but Shooter242 ought to be banned from this web site. He's a straight up liar and manages to hijack many threads. Find out his IP and ban his sorry ass.
-
The mental shortcomings of shooter242
Dude, being a liar is disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself.
One suspects he's had the capacity for "shame" removed when he had himself lobotomized. It would certainly explain his lack of critical thinking and frankly sociopathic claims.
-
The problem with callng it propaganda
Adnoto, I agree with you that what you read and see, from Time and Newsweek -- in my opinion the ur-infotainment publications -- to the Sunday bobbleheads is propaganda, but it isn't propaganda pure and simple.
By that I mean that there isn't a single Bureau of Propaganda hidden somewhere in the Department of Homeland Security, or in Party Headquarters (Republican.) The talking points don't all come openly from a single source, but seem to be adopted by a somewhat complicated hydraulic machinery based largely on the principles of Conventional Wisdom and osmosis. There may be a Party Line, but is isn't the party alone which is disseminating it, and there aren't point-by-point copies of the dos and don'ts lying around somewhere for the mouthbreathers to read.
So...how is this obvious propaganda distributed to the shills, and how do they know what is and isn't part of it? When the party line shifts, as it now appears likely that it's about to vis-a-vis Iraq, how do they find out abot the new version? Is it as simple as a telephone call from Karl Rove? Somehow, I doubt it.
In my opinion, Chomsky has the best -- or at least the most detailed -- take on how this process works at present, but people have been noting parts of it for years, at least since William H. Whyte and the Organization Man, and Glenn has recently provided some remarkable insights even when analyzing the effects rather than the causes.
To sum up, I don't really mind calling it propaganda, but it does seem important to distinguish how the Soviet Union once managed social control from how it's presently managed in the United States.
-
Reward and Punishment
I suspect that a large part of the problem here is the merging of journalism with punditry. The 24-hour cable news stations put a premium on shoot-from-the-hip commentary and opinion. They don't need real journalists, because there's no conflict without taking a stance one way or another.
The right-leaning bent of these people is probably a result of the fact that the Republicans have engaged in a winner-take-all system of reward and punishment that the Democrats have eschewed in favor of quaint ideals like "fairness" and "impartiality" and "journalistic standards." In other words, appear to side with Democrats on any issue, and you get punished. Toe the GOP line, and there's mostly smooth sailing for your punditry career.