11.17.2008

A Few Notes on the Media

Let me try and tie a couple of things together here.

1. It has been widely claimed that 32 absentee ballots from Minnesota were left in the trunk of a Hennepin County election official's car before being "discovered" some days later. However, as Media Matters and other new media organizations have reported, the authenticity of the claim is -- at best -- debatable, and may have originated from one of Norm Coleman's lawyers. (As you can see for yourself, I share in the blame on this one).

2. I spent a good amount of my Saturday watching the Frontline special on Lee Atwater, which -- while painting a very humanizing portrait of the "Boogie Man" -- left little doubt about how credulous the mainstream media can be in the face claims made by a skilled (but manifestly deceitful) operative like Mr. Atwater.

3. The New York Times reports that CBS executives were attempting to placate Republican critics with their investigation into Dan Rather's reporting of the Killian documents, which alleged that George W. Bush received preferential treatment while in the Air National Guard. (The Killian documents were rapidly and -- to my mind -- somewhat convincingly challenged by conservative blogs.)

It is, from my vantage point, utterly hypocritical that CBS apparently encouraged Dan Rather to resign his anchorship after the Killian report, when the broadcasting of such claims speaks to far more widespread dysfunction within that news organization. (Nor is it any accident that, when Mr. Rather left CBS, a cavalcade of talented personnel -- ranging from acclaimed producers to cameramen -- left along with him.) That CBS officials may have succumbed to Republican pressure is completely unsurprising; unsurprising that Republicans applied such pressure (Democrats would have done the same), but equally unsurprising that such a mainstream media institution lacked the backbone to admit to an honest mistake and own up to it.

CBS's underlying problem -- and the commonality between the three items that I described above -- is the arbitrary and largely ineffectual nature of the fact-checking process employed by the mainstream media. I have written for perhaps a dozen major publications over the span of my career, and the one with the most thorough fact-checking process is by some margin Sports Illustrated. Although this is an indication of the respect with which SI accords its brand, it does not speak so well of the mainstream political media that you are more likely to see an unverified claim repeated on the evening news than you are to see in the pages of your favorite sports periodical.

One of the questions triggered by the Frontline program is what would have happened if Atwater were still alive today; might he have had more success in undermining Barack Obama than Steve Schmidt apparently did? My answer is very probably not, because the blogosphere serves as the fact-checkers that the mainstream media is too negligent to employ. On the contrary, I think that Mr. Atwater would have been smart enough to realize that he'd be eaten alive by Daily Kos and Media Matters and Keith Olbermann, and would be thoroughly enjoying himself in retirement playing in a blues band in South Carolina somewhere.

93 comments

Coert said...

Yay for the internet. I especially enjoyed fackcheck.org's efforts this election. (But then again, who checks their factcheckery?)

stupidgreen said...

Ironically, kinda reminds me of the "Rush Limbaugh's fact checker" schtick from Al Franken's book.

Valpey said...

Unrelated to this post, but thought I'd flag your attention to say I'm looking forward to a post-mortem from your point of view on how various pollsters performed and weather any quality lessons were learned from exit polls a la cellphone effect, turnout hype etc.

Cheers,

Sand said...

Thanks for another brilliant insight Nate. The blogosphere has emphatically overstepped the mainstream media as a source of credible news. Making money and the bottom line has played a major role in the devolution of the media into the giant untruthful tabloid it has become. Their unapologetic incompetence has led to the prominence of sites like Media Matters, Fact Check, and Politifact. I've even seen a clip of a Fox News commentator questioning the credibility of these sites because they pointed out the inaccuracies of his network. They act as if having a megaphone strapped to their mouths gives them the leeway to be colossally incompetent journalists. It's sickening.

Robert said...

And yet the MSM is still where the viewers are, for the most part.

I'm doubtful about the internet's role as fact-checker. A good fact-checker would stop the false report before it aired. Internet fact-checkers are limited to doing damage control after the event. And internet fact checking only reaches those who bother to look for it... the people who already want the false report to turn out to be false.

sugerfunk said...

While I agree that the best type of fact-checker would prevent a false report from airing in the first place, it is not true that Internet fact-checking is only seen by those who seek it. Often times, the MSM follows up on a false report with "clarifications" in an attempt to avoid embarrassment after the proliferation of the corrected information on the Web.

Also, according to this Pew poll, 33% of people now get at least some of their news from the Internet. While television and radio (the most error-prone media) still dominate, the ability to reach 33% through online sources is no small achievement, and the net growth for web-based news between 2004 and 2008 was +23%.

obsessed said...

This is hilarious!

Remember our McCain supporting pal VirginiaConservative? I was actually fond of him and didn't consider him a troll like PeteKent and MuleRider, but anyway, he was also a heavy poster over at Anonymous Liberal and AL has collected all of his posts beginning with the nomination of Sarah P back in August. It's classic and gut-bustingly funny.

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2008/11/palin-bubble-in-real-time.html

Clarke Bustard said...

Fact-checking is part of it. The other part is motive-checking, which is essential given the political media's wholesale dependence on unnamed sources.

It's one thing to gather elusive or concealed facts from anonymous sources. Investigative journalism depends on them for initial tips and access to documents.

It's something else for reporters and news outlets to provide cover for hit jobs, score-settling and obfuscation. Since they do, it's important for sites such as this one to cautious and skeptical about what they pass along.

If you don't independently verify a story that depended on an anonymous source -- and attribution to the news outlet that first reported the story doesn't count as verification -- then you're not disseminating information. You're spreading word-of-mouth.

kerem said...

I was excited to see this post. I'd had enough recount coverage. And taking shots at the media is always fun.

Jaka said...

This is somewhat "old", but just in case some of you haven't seen it:
http://xkcd.com/500/

(And be sure to read the hidden tooltip on the comic!)

Coronado said...

Though I admire your site and opinions, and respect Dan Rather greatly, I think you've personalized the matter re Rather & Killian. Rather was not without fault though there is no question CBS showed no backbone in the matter.

Walter Mondale said...

Nate, could you explain to us what exactly went wrong in Georgia and why Obama didn't carry the state despite huge AA turnout? 95% of the AA vote and 30% of the rest would still have made this win for Obama. So what happened? I'm at a loss here and ready to entertain some conspiracy theories...

Jeff said...

The most intriguing aspect of the Frontline piece, for me, was how Lee Atwater commanded the Washington press corps by validating its extreme cynicism.

The press loved Lee because he was exuberant in his celebration of institutional hypocrisy and invited them along for the ride. Why be the grouchy voice of outrage when you can be a cool, smug insider like Lee?

PorridgeGun said...

I watched that Lee atwater documentary last month. As despicable as Atwater was, and he deserved his fate, time hasn't been as kind to CNN's Bernard Shaw, mostly because his line of questioning against Dukakis offered a glimpse into what the MSM has turned into to. The most blatant recent example being ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos (courtesy of Sean Hannity talking-points) tag-teaming Obama during THAT debate.



Speaking of the current MSM...


http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/right-wingers-dominate-sunday-talk-show

x0lani said...

Yeah, I agree. There is an interesting relationship arising between the blogosphere and the mainstream media. The blogosphere is full of inaccuracies, but it reacts very quickly to small bits of news that the mainstream media may missed. And once it builds up momentum, the mainstream media will usually pick up on it. On the other hand, pure rumor seems to fizzle out eventually or just circulate on the extremist blogs.

Palin is a pretty good example of how the blogosphere can go wrong and bring light to important factsat the same time. The lies about her baby were rampant but never picked up by the media, but Troopergate and her lies about the Bridge to Nowhere got hammered on and eventually brought to light by some media outlets.

joel said...

I agree the MSM is always out to get the politicians but not just the democrats. As much as i detest palin, Gibson was looking for a gotcha moment and Couric was not opposed to making palin look bad.
I really wish she would go away though becaise she is proving them right, she really is dumb.
I sure hope she becomes the face of republicans because this will assure a democratic domination for a long time.
Wolf Blitzer interviewed her yesterday and she was so stupid he had to basically say so you mean to say whenever she couldn`t answer a question intelligently.
I guess Wolf was worried she would think he was making her look bad and it might be bad for ratings

Edmund said...

Well -- how many angry letters does the Washington Post get if they say something damaging and incorrect about George Bush? How many does the Post get if they say something damaging and incorrect about Barack Obama?

And are these two numbers dwarfed by the number of angry letters SI gets if they get Walter Johnson's WHIP wrong?

PINKTUBE.TV said...

Is it just me or did anyone notice this cycle the MSM reliance for the most part solely on the campaign talking points and pressers as news stories? One word: LAZY

bryen193 said...

"Nate, could you explain to us what exactly went wrong in Georgia and why Obama didn't carry the state despite huge AA turnout? 95% of the AA vote and 30% of the rest would still have made this win for Obama. "

Obama barely carried 20% of whites in the deep south.

Dave-london said...

I want to see a thorough analysis of the polls / voting etc. I suppose we will get it after all the resaults are offically in but: Is the cellphone effect now dead?

Tony C. said...

Okay, but even if it had been true, why assume the fraud is on the part of Franken? Couldn't it also have been that a Coleman supporting poll worker tried to hide 32 ballots for Franken, in order to give Coleman an edge?

Matt said...

Following up on their report from last week, the NY Observer says Nate has signed two-book deal with Penguin worth 700K...

Nate's Book Deal

JF Isher said...

Yeah I'd prefer that MSNBC not join in and echo unverified claims.

Oh and hey nate, tilt your head up and smile while you kill (smile while you talk on TV - take a cue from Maddow, she's smiling even when she's totally angry).

PorridgeGun said...

joel said...

I agree the MSM is always out to get the politicians but not just the democrats. As much as i detest palin, Gibson was looking for a gotcha moment and Couric was not opposed to making palin look bad.



I disagree. Gibson threw mostly softballs at her, otherwise Steve Scmhidt wouldn't have allowed the interview to go ahead. It was how she non-answered the Bush Doctrine question that had alarm bells ringing. Gibson could have humiliated her, but didn't. He even gave her the answer. With Couric it was just bizarre.



I really wish she would go away though becaise she is proving them right, she really is dumb.
I sure hope she becomes the face of republicans because this will assure a democratic domination for a long time.
Wolf Blitzer interviewed her yesterday and she was so stupid he had to basically say so you mean to say whenever she couldn`t answer a question intelligently.
I guess Wolf was worried she would think he was making her look bad and it might be bad for ratings.




Bit of a contradiction with your erlier point. Even with softball questions lobbed at her, she still buggers them up. It doesn't matter if it's with Larry Kudlow, Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, or Wolf Blitzer, she comes across as a complete dolt.

Antmatic said...

Obama underperformed with the white vote in GA versus his performance in other Atlantic coast Southern states. Obama got 39% of the white vote in VA and 35% of the white vote in NC, which were substantial improvements from Kerry's support in 2004.

However, in GA, Obama got 23% of the white vote, which is the same as Kerry got in 2004. That's actually pretty disappointing, considering Obama got 26% of the white vote in South Carolina (better than Kerry), and the South Carolina white vote should be substantially more conservative than the Georgia white vote.

Georgia has a large population of educated white suburbanites, and while they tend to be SEC grads that are conservative, they are not 12 percentage points more conservative than VA voters. Also, the city of Atlanta has had an influx of younger white residents who should have been targets for Obama. I'm not sure what happened there, but Obama's efforts in GA were entirely focused on driving up black turnout in early voting versus advertising in the state. If Obama had visited and spent money in GA, maybe he could have won the state. Oh well, only so many states you can visit.

El Cid said...

Unfortunately, Nate, I see little evidence that the major news media care that a "skillful" albeit "manifestly deceitful" operator can use them to spread lies and calumny.

In fact, they seem to admire such types and activities.

As long as the skillful manipulators are skillful enough, and hewing sufficiently toward cynical manipulation, they're fine with that.

I think their turn against the McCain / Palin barrage of lies was that McPalin weren't doing their job -- they were not lying skillfully enough.

There was an entire month of simple, clear, bald-faced lies by McCain / Palin following the convention, beginning with Palin's basic claim to have opposed the 'bridge to nowhere'.

The current right wing propagandists once again successfully convincing our cowardly, idiot media that they 'erred' by pointing out the simple incompetent nature of the McPalin season of lies just failed to work hard enough to allow the media to cooperate in their propaganda.

And if the media follows the Washington Post line that they now need to hire more right wing flacks because right wing flacks said they leaned Obama, then I will be glad to attend the major newspapers' funerals while they whine about the internet some more.

mknezo said...

Nate, I recall thinking the same think you concluded: the Killian docs were forged. After I read some doc analysts' comments later, I wasn't at all certain. The proportional-type issue was not the "smoking gun" the early bloggers claimed it to be. And after that, it's just inconclusive. Which means they shouldn't have run with them--but I ended up thinking it was 50-50 that they were real.

Antmatic said...

Also, it is important to remember that GA is the largest state in the South (besides Florida) and has very large small town and rural populations outside of Atlanta. These voters are very conservative.

Still, I don't understand how Obama did better with white voters in SC than GA

Kennyb said...

I hate to say it, but for the best post-election analysis of pollsters and polls, the competition has what we seek and what Nate has only provided in scattershot form, up to now. Check out Mark Blumenthal's blog at Pollster.com:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/pollster_accuracy_and_the_nati.php

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20081111_6722.php

And more related to Georgia and the White Vote for Obama:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/white_vote_for_obama_in_the_st.php

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/white_vote_for_obama_in_the_st_1.php (Part II)

More on cellphone polling, with a wonderful graph that shows pollster accuracy:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/plotting_pollster_accuracy.php

tkpk said...

I agree that the CBS documents were questionable however the larger question remains about how Bush's service in the Texas National Guard and how the MSM covered it compared to the MSM reporting on the Swiftboat smear of Kerry in August of '04.
I still can't believe the disconnect between the two events. Kerry a genuiner combat veteran called into question while Bush was allowed to skate free without answering the hard questions of where he was during the war.

Mrs B said...

Re the Bush and Kerry differences:
I wonder about the effectiveness of the Dem and GOP media operations. If the Dems were not rebutting the swift boat stuff, then it is not surprising that the MSM ran with it. On the other hand, the Bush National Guard stuff was rebutted hard - but only on the authenticity of the documents, not on the fact that actually HE DIDN'T DO THE SERVICE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO, something which appears to have got lost in the row. Hmmm, almost enough to make you think the GOP neutralised the lack of Bush's service by leaking info in a way that they could then challenge.......
Also, I suspect the MSM are all commercial operations. I think you have an amendment that guarantees freedom of speech and the press, but that won't stop eg withdrawal of advertising. Plus, they want viewers - so they show stuff that they think their viewers want, and if they think their average viewer leans to the Republicans, then they are going to lean to them too.
What you need is the BBC! (Even though they are not perfect either).

Wa7th said...

My eyes have been opened, good sir. From now on I get all of my news from SI.

jsh1120 said...

Nate,

Please take this as a minor criticism. While I agree (and applaud) your analysis with regard to the Dan Rather clusterf**k, I believe your recent appearance on Rather's election night analysis calls for a mention. It's a judgment call, I grant. But one I believe you should have made in the other direction.

Redshift said...

As several people have pointed out, the right-wing pushed back successfully against the documents (whether accurate or not, it's hard to judge, since the "fonts" issue they crow the most about was complete BS), but not against the actual conclusions of the story. Compare that to the anonymous-source political stories that are run every day, many of which turn out to be completely inaccurate. The lesson is clear: get the story wrong with no evidence, and the worst that will happen is that the story gets dropped (or in very rare cases, a correction.) Use methods that can be attacked to embarrass the network (even if the story is accurate), and you may get fired.

moondancer said...

I agree that Atwater in a hypothetical would not have been there to trash Obama. His remarkable deathbed conversion and repentance was a sign of compassion not found in the likes of Rove. I doubt Atwater could have stomached that many decades of perfidy.

Ben Byrne said...

Support media reform. Visit freepress.net.

They work on more than just trying to say journalism from the pressures of the bottom line, of course, but the range of topics they work on all deal at least indirectly with expanding discourse and truth.

Cugel said...

"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media."

Noam Chomsky

There's this myth in America that the media is "liberal" when in reality it's owned by multi-billion dollar corporations and often run by extreme right-wingers like Ruppert Murdoch.

What kind of imaginary world is it in which giant corporate media corporations are run by closet Marxists?

In order to maintain that fantasy you have to imagine that the corporate bosses "wouldn't ever interfere in the operations of the newsroom." The numerous examples where they do all the time are dismissed out of hand.

The Dan Rather firing was simply one incident. Rather was perceived to be hostile to Bush and he was forced out. That's what happens when the Right wing demands total subservience.

The corporate media in America today simply don't think of themselves as being an opposition group determined to dig the truth out of government and expose corruption and fraud -- they see themselves as part of the D.C. cocktail circuit and it would be embarrassing to have to write stories about the "friends" they hobnob with at parties actually being a band of crooks who are destroying the Constitution by wiretapping America, using government power in an unfettered attempt to destroy their enemies (as in the district attorney scandals), etc. an endless litany of wrong-doing that makes the Nixon administration look like a Sunday School Picnic.

What happened between 1973 and 2008 is that corporate concentration of the media made it absolutely impossible for another "Watergate expose" to ever happen again.

Due to media consolidation, the power of the corporate elite over the mainstream media is now complete. The media of 2008 would simply have fired Woodward and Bernstein, would have re-assigned them, would never have supported their efforts the minute they started accusing the White House of committing felonies.

The mainstream media today functions precisely as it did in Stalin's Russia as a propaganda arm of the government.

GoldenAh said...

You make a good point. Once a blogger or Internet source has higher credibility than the mainstream media, that source becomes the "fact-checker." Well, that's what you were for me in this GE. I ignored the majority of polls, and would look to this site instead.

Hope you have a thorough follow-up of why results seemed off in some places.

Per your book pictures: don't wear the glasses please.

Smooches.

Mrs B said...

Nate,
keep the glasses and just be yourself!
After all, you managed to get all those media appearances and that book deal without any advice from anyone on this site, didn't you?
Who says any of us know anything?

Oh, that kind of undermines line 1 of this post, but never mind.

David Grenier said...

my favorite sports periodical is Obscure Sports Quarterly.

Mrs B said...

If Nate wants to widen the scope of his stats, maybe he could look at cricket?

livemild said...

mccain's military service got a pass just as bush's did. i mean really when did navy air allow a screwup to continually crash planes and he wasnt grounded? wonder if daddy admiral had anything to do with that...
just where did bush's military records go? was he too stoned to serve?
what medals do you get specifically for being a POW?
comparing it with the actual cost max cleland paid or with kerry's was twisted to say the least.the GOP trashed cleland and kerry

mccain will go down in military history as the first POW to turn himself into a hero for being caught!

Juris said...

@kennyb: Thanks for the links. I think the Pollster group is an excellent group of analysts. They've done well in summarizing the main results. I like Blumenthal's skepticism about the 'final polls' as perhaps being adjusted a bit (Nate pointed out the same thing in his final update).

They also tend to show that this election wasn't quite the definitive landslide or a great leap forward in turnout (by the young, African Americans and Latinos) as it has been touted to be (but shouldn't be denigrated either).

But those results are just skimming through the data. There are at least four very complicated analyses to do that require deeper attention.

(1) One of these is "How much did (Obama's) race matter"?

True, there is little evidence of a Bradley Effect (though deeper research remains to be done before the coffin is sealed on that), but would an equally well qualified white male have done a lot better than Obama did? If so, there's a "race effect."

(2) Another important question has to do with the effects campaign strategy.

First, the messaging, the choice of VP's. Second, and much more important: Did Obama's vaunted "ground game" advantage over McCain really make a difference? Or was Obama's advantage in media buys really the decisive factor?

Answering this question may require more micro-level focus on turnout in relation to ground game, media buys, and candidate visits within states, not between them.

(3) Related to this is the question of candidate visits and focus.

Indiana may be a critical case in point. McCain's team, and the candidate himself, seem to have taken Indiana for granted -- look at differences in the number of field offices, look at candidate visits, and look at media spending. This was the one "miss" in Nate's projections -- admittedly small in percentage terms, but what should the Indiana outcome have been given the demographics, the location (a lot within Chicago's extended media market), and the campaign efforts?

(4) The big question: Why did the "50-state strategy" work? What conditions created this? Why in 2008? Was the same option available had the Kerry campaign been more creative in 2004?

In other words, was this success a result of a fundamental change in the countours of the American electorate -- or was it a result of a very savvy Obama campaign team? And can it be sustained? (Answering it is inevitably going to be tied up with assessing the future of the GOP and Democratic party coalitions -- and analysis of state-level as well as national elecdtions.)

Those are only some of the bigger questions yet to be addressed. Among the others will be the impact of the Bush's unpopularity and the economic meltdown. In the end, how much did those two factors matter -- relative to the nitty gritties of campaign strategy and tactics or the underlying changes in the electorate?

Lots and lots to do along this line. It will be keeping political scientists busy for the next several years.

Kennyb said...

Juris, all good questions, some of which may be ultimately a matter of opinion informed by statistical analysis. One thing that I would like to see is the Supertracker WITH the Convention bounces that we voted not to apply. I continue to think that the "Palin bounce" that the media keeps discussing is more of the typical convention bounce, with maybe a bit more stepping on Obama's convention bounce than expected.

wv: "oring" - A sad reminder here in New Hampshire, Christa McAuliffe's home state.

PaulK said...

First of all, note that SI is not on a tight news deadline, whereas the MSM generally is. In the 24/7 news cycle, the 1st with new information gets the eyeballs for a while. So, new information, cannot be held for too long waiting on fact checking, else it will come out somewhere else.
The important role the blogosphere plays as fact checker is catching these problems quickly and both stopping the spread within the MSM and also embarrassing many news organizations to do more fact checking (they ask - will this blow up in our face on the internet?). Although most Americans do not read the blogs, they do not have to - plenty in the MSM and the editorial TV and radio shows will pick up good fact checking problems and run with it. So, even if CBS never says anything, every other channel will make a story on CBS being wrong on a story - that is how the cycle works.
The problem with the CBS thing was that it became the news and distracted attention from the real story on Bush and his lack of service (and father clearing it for him).

Voice of the Midwest said...

The Republican Party once claimed they were the party of ideas. Then, power became more important that principle or these dangerous things called ideas. So, they resorted to a menu of distractions and attacks that they pulled out every two years.

Especially after 9/11.

But the GOP attacking the media has become so common that it falls on deaf ears anymore. Truth is, if the media were not owned by conservatives, then there would have been indignant media executives questioning the meme as far back as when it was first used by Agnew in 1972.

The media is owned by conservatives. Creative people like writers and reporters tend to be liberal. No news there, but the GOP is completely unaware that the vast majority of onlookers know this to be the case.

Joe The Fake Virginian said...

Others have mentioned it, but there are several problems with the MSM (Main Stream Media) that interfere with complete objectivity.

The biggest problem is the fact they are in the BUSINESS of selling advertising dollars. While there is a noble "attempt" at non-bias, the fact is that sensationalization sells and that this is best accomplished by sound bites.

The second biggest problem is that the MSM is owned by major corporations that have STRONG ties to the federal government and the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhauer warned about during his farewell address. There are certain topics that DO NOT GET COVERED or get minimal coverage in the MSM.

The third problem, which is the one that is getting fixed by multiple sources, is the repetition of lies by the MSM as part of its "balanced" coverage". People made their decisions based on things like body language and feel, as opposed to lies being called out as lies. Big whoppers were given equal treatment as small, white lies or slight exagerations. If fault was found with one campaign, fault HAD TO BE FOUND with the other campaign.

Those that called things out included Jon Stewart, the Huffington Post, fivethirtyeight and some others. Interesting, some of the more conservative analysts were allowed to criticize the McCain-Palin ticket first, as a "show" of "objectivity.

Michael said...

@juris

IN (and NE CD2) were nominally misses for Nate's all-powerful Model, but not for Nate the Human. He'd specifically singled out IN as the state where an enormous ground-game discrepancy (to which I'm proud to have contributed a tiny bit) led him to expect just enough shift to flip the results./mbw

sfergus483 said...

How times have changed.

Nate was just on MSNBC (3 Senate races) and no one noticed here...

Brad said...

The more things change the more they stay the same (1800 and today):

1) Alien and Sedition Acts as the Patior Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

2) Sarah Palin and the religious types slamming Obama, likethe lsams on Jefferson: http://boards.history.com/topic/History-Of-Christianity/Religion-In-Politics/520010353

3) 1800 election hinged on an unpopular war: http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/johnadams.html


The take home? The good guys won then and today. Let's hope this election can signal the same fundamental move to thought over fear, knowledge over prayer.

twopack said...

or maybe someone didn't notise that we notised. go shesk your fasts, sfuskus. (an American spelling post esp. designed for jeffnysdem the gay wankstain)

PresidentHussein said...

On Race: Les Payne writes in Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppay175930631nov17,0,2264981.column):

"After voting heavily against the first black U.S. presidential candidate, the white majority in this country seems bent now on declaring Sen. Barack Obama's victory as the end of racism in the republic."

McCain apparently won the white vote nationwide by 12 points, 55-43. In many states McCain fared better among whites than Bush in '04 (despite this being the most horribilis annus for the GOP in living memory). Since whites make up about 70% of the electorate, that means BHO won non-whites by about 75-25. This hardly seems like a post-racial America.

I'm wondering: In which states did BHO do better among whites than Kerry? Those states would at least have some claim to post-raciality. I'm hoping 8 yrs of BHO in the WH will bring more of them along...

twopack said...

If Goldie Hawn marries Nate she will be Goldie Silver.

susan said...

Speaking as a former high end typist, the superscript and proportional font were almost certainly a forgery. Superscripts required switching the typewriter ball for each incidence, and the proportional spacing was not possible without typesetting equipment.

BUT, I've always thought it likely that the forgery was provided by the Republican dirty tricks department specifically to create this firestorm which stopped the investigation cold.

re Georgia: Election Protection Coalition (from Huffpost 11/2):
"Registation-related problems rank #1 in nearly every battleground state - hundreds of calls focus on that problem, most often in ... [other states and] Georgia."
"Georgia voters are reporting more incidents of voter intimidation than any other state."
"Early voting problems are also being noticed, particularly in ... Georgia ..."

Palin appearances: three ring circus.

livemild said...

lol

but what would their kids be-one is silver but the other ones gold? an old brownie song.

speaking of brownies i just found out about mothers cookies and am devastated! no more taffy bars. why not bail out the cookie industry?

speaking of the senate races does anyone know if AK is counting today?

Fireside Steve said...

It's always interesting to see how media reflects/influences elections. I've wondered what the media was like during the first presidential elections. Things are so different now with technology and the way information spreads.

http://wwwDiscussTheFireside.com - Talk about Obama's weekly fireside chats.

joel said...

It`s not so much racism as distrust of democrats by white America. No democrat since Johnson has carried white America. I think Obama may have carried more white voters than Kerry did, but the racist southern voters kept his numbers down.
I would guess that Obama carried the white vote is the Northeastern states and maybe the west coast, but the white southerners still vote against the democrats 75-25.
Still mad about the civil war and the civil rights act. Things won`t change for another generation.

Walter Mondale said...

Thanks bryen193 and Antmatic for explaining what happened in Georgia. 23% of the white vote, whew, still a long way to go to make Georgia a pickup in 2012.

And speaking of the ultimate pickup, TX, it now looks much further out of reach. Looking at the graph KennyB provided,

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/white_vote_for_obama_in_the_st.php

Obama got less of the white vote in TX than in WY, OK, and UT! So there's your challenge.

Rudy said...

The Killian documents were SOMEWHAT CONVINCINGLY discredited??? There was definitive evidence of fraud, in that they were produced using proportionally-spaced word processing tools not yet available at that date.

Kennyb said...

Yes, except that Texas is now a "majority minority" state, so it's not as bad as WY, OK or UT.

PresidentHussein said...

Joel -- When the black Dem candidate does worse among whites than the white Dem candidate (Kerry), and does so in a year that is far better for Dems, the only explanation is race. This may have occurred in only a few southern states, however.

Kennyb said...

Joel,

You contradict yourself:

"It`s not so much racism as distrust of democrats by white America....Still mad about the civil war and the civil rights act."

Distrust due to racism=racism.

markymark said...

I think that Atwater would not be running a McCain campaign, and any campaign he did decide to get involved with would have crushed McCain in the primaries (Bush was pretty brutal on Dole in the 88 primaries remember!)

I think the media tends to write the political story it wants to. I think in someways Gore for instance got caught up in a media storm that was not his fault, and not of his making because it suited the media narrative that was being written. I think that in some ways the media is not right or left wing, but interested in creating narrative. Kerry got swift boated because it fitted the narrative, whereas Obama was largely left alone, because the media bought his narrative.

(I wonder if its easier to fact chekc for a sprts publication becuase a players average is say .267 and there is no arguing, whereas political stats can be made to fit arguments.)

PaulK said...

@susan, "proportional spacing was not possible without typesetting equipment" - this is just not true. The IBM Executive and the Remington Statesman had proportional fonts back in the late 60s. Others had it back to the 1940s. The Executive had superscript characters as well (each number and dagger and the like).
The proportional font itself is the issue. Some of the font characters are not known to have existed on any typewriter that would have been used in the US.
It is true that many bloggers claimed it was a fraud from the proportional characters, but they were wrong. But, it did raise the issue of looking at the characters as well as the deposition of ink on the paper (which is a giveaway).

mclever said...

Regarding the Killian documents, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the documents that Rather had were forgeries, or perhaps they were forged copies of documents that actually existed.

Isn't it possible that someone re-typed the documents?

Sure, the documents that Rather had in his hand were likely false documents, but that doesn't mean the originals didn't exist. Rather also had corroborating evidence from witnesses who verified the general substance of the documents.

So, what if this was an elaborate ruse to discredit Rather/CBS? What better way to do it than providing reproduced documents which can be easily debunked, even if their contents were legitimate. Then, even if someone later produces the actual documents, it will be seen as just being a better forgery.

OK, I'm taking the tinfoil hat off now...

Mrs B said...

these documents, never mind whether they were authentic; was any evidence ever produced to prove that the content was false?

Also, presumably someone must have produced them. Was there an investigation into what happened? Did the FBI or anybody take an interest? What did the investigation show?

mclever said...

Mrs. B,

No, no one ever disproved the content of the documents. And there were witnesses who corroborated at least some of the details.

Antmatic said...

Looking at GA and TX, I think there you have a large number of white voters who are not "racist" or anything but who are just wealthy conservatives. The Houston suburbs, Atlanta suburbs, Dallas suburbs, etc are full with voters who have all the economic incentive to vote Repuiblican.

Josh said...

I think Lee Atwater may also have preferred to see Obama as president, rather than McCain.

susan said...

While someone with more knowledge of equipment than I spoke to the forgery issue, I was hoping to get to THIS, which is *much* more important:

I still think it quite likely that the forged documents were funneled to the press by the Republican dirty tricks movement in order to kill the story.

Will someone please think about this?

known = what is?

susan said...

Mrs B:

As far as I know, the content was never disproved. The proof of forgery was too close to the election. The story of the forgery killed the story of the content of the forgery, which was not addressed.

Ace said...

As someone who works as a producer in the mainstream media (just a small market television) station, I thought I'd throw in some thoughts.

I hear a lot of claims about the bias of the media. We actually got a number of e-mails and calls from people during the election season. They were people who watched the same coverage, but some went off on us about our "liberal bias"--and some about our "conservative bias." I semi-seriously suggested we forward these comments to other side to see if their heads would explode from the contradiction.

I've certainly encountered reporters who are unashamed to admit their political persuasion. But that's a far cry from being completely oblivious of it. I've certainly seen a journalist's hidden assumptions taint their perception--but I've seen that happen with everyone and I've never seen it so severe when I've seen a story severely distorted because of it. My newsroom has people from both sides of the political aisle, and they wouldn't let something disgusting distorted on air. While I'd say most journalists can't see around all of the assumptions they make, neither can most viewers. That's why we'll get calls on the same news coverage blasting us for "bias" or "distorting the facts" or "playing to corporate" interests. Those are almost always just ways of saying, "You did/didn't report something that conflicts with how I see the world; therefore you must be wrong because I know the truth."

As for the how corporate impacts the newsroom, I can say they do have some push in the newsroom. At my station, the company is pushing toward a rebrand of our website. They want to ramp up traffic since the advertising possibilities online are growing whereas you can only cram so many spots onto your broadcast channels. They want to make the site into a sort of local portal (think Yahoo but on a much smaller scale). So I'm stuck putting in all sorts of website plugs into the newscast. One of the corporate heads actually said he wanted us to promote the website so much that "we'd want to shoot ourselves from hearing it so much."

What does this have to do about politics? Nothing. And that's the point.

Corporate and sales only care about the money they make. Politics are only an afterthought toward this. They'll just as easily take money from the Republicans as they will from the Democrats (even when the ads are of dubious truth... even though the mainstream media did lead to changes in one). Corporate proudly said October was their biggest revenue month ever. Well, when Barack Obama and John McCain is saturating your newscasts with spots.

The company I work for is about turning the profit so the company so the company doesn't default on the financing it needed to buy up a dozen stations. It, however, has a reputation as being a cheap company and is despised by most of its employees on the news side. But since ownership is the way it is I'm stuck promoting the hell out of website.

Whenever I've seen sales try to interfere in the newsroom, they've been shot down. One saleswoman called up pissed when we featured an advertiser when an employee committed a sex crime while on the job. Aside from not actually being aware that she had facts about our story wrong, no one yielded to her demands to alter the story--and no one higher up put pressure on us to do it either.

It's funny to hear people who don't appear to have ever stepped foot in a newsroom talk about how the entire structure of the industry works. Mind you, I'm not saying the mainstream media can't be inept or that they can focus on the trivial, just that this idea of the media working as their evil corporate machine to smash truth and uphold the government is... well... just funny.

craigw5 said...

Hey, Nate! Good luck with the book. It's been great to see you all over the TV. Get somebody to design some t-shirts, already. How about a baseball hat... "538" over a Poblano chili?

susan said...

@mclever

sorry I missed your comment earlier. But I don't think it requires a tinfoil hat to think it's likely.

C said...

"the authenticity of the [32 ballots] claim is -- at best -- debatable"

No, it is at best false. What's there to debate?

Hector said...

The supposed de-biasing effect of fact-checking on the Internet is utter baloney. The Internet is indeed a godsend for people who WANT to see both sides of an issue, and people that are looking for the truth, but for people that are indulging their own preconceptions--which are the majority, it appears--the Internet is much better at creating and sustaining semi-willful idiocy (Trig's not Palin's baby, anyone? Obama's foreign birth, anyone?) that wouldn't have gotten any notice if it weren't plastered all over the Internet.

On this point the MSM and blogosphere cancel out.

PaulK said...

@Hector, "The supposed de-biasing effect of fact-checking on the Internet is utter baloney." - I think you are taking this way out of context. It is agreed by all that the internet is home to a lot of loonies and stories that not even tabloids would print. But, that is not the point. The point is that the bloggers are poised and ready to pounce on any fallacious story, to fact check what politicians and talking heads say, and to be out front on real news. This means that the MSM is forced to reckon with the valid ones because otherwise the credibility of the corporate news organization is in serious jeopardy. The reasonable blogs are separated from the unreasonable fairly quickly. But, what is important is that it is not that the average American reads those blogs, it is that they get better news from the TV and newspapers because enough people do.
The manipulations of the Lee Attwaters and Karl Roves (Swift boaters anyone?) is much harder than it used to be and is only going to get harder. This is because more Americans are branching out to a wider source of information than just one news channel.

Andrew said...

According to the NYT Rather article, ol' Dan rarely misses a court date.. including the day after the election!

skeeter said...

I don't normally like to drift into "tinfoil hat" territory, but I am convinced that if the Killian docs were faked, they were faked by Karl Rove or his ilk precisely for the double-whammy of 1) discrediting their old liberal media archenemy; and 2) neutering the whole discussion into GWB's military record. (I also suspect the same thing with the Palin "sambo beat the bitch" rumor, which may in fact prove Nate's argument that those sorts of things can't get the same traction due to blogging fact-checking.)

Hector said...

@paulk- re: "The manipulations of the Lee Attwaters and Karl Roves (Swift boaters anyone?) is much harder than it used to be and is only going to get harder. This is because more Americans are branching out to a wider source of information than just one news channel."

This is a different argument, one about whether smears still work in the age of blogging. I disagree with this one as well. How would more blog coverage prevent Lee Atwaters' from using the covertly racist "Willie Horton" commercials against Dukakis, or make it less effective? How would more blog coverage make Atwater's comment that an opponent who received electroshock therapy for depression was "hooked up to jumper cables" less devastating? To take your own example, bloggers DID refute the 'swiftboating', but it seems not to have helped--and not for lack of bloggers.

The problem is not just finding the truth, but getting people to listen to it. So long as people have prejudices against the mentally ill, other races, non-militarists, East coast liberals, whatever, they're going to be able to be manipulated by those prejudices. I don't see how blogging (which, let's face facts, is pretty "small tent") is going to help. In fact there's less respect for political difference in the blogosphere than in the mainstream media.

EliRabett said...

Nonsense, what would have happened is that the black anchors on the local and national news and the reporters everywhere would have chewed him up and spit him out. They were not going to allow Obama to be swift boated

PaulK said...

@Hector, the world has changed from even 2004. The Swift Boat attack only worked because the MSM media was in a froth covering it and Kerry was too slow to deal with it (making it look like an admission from Kerry). The bloggers were also slow to respond. I think that the media is much more cautious about repeating such allegations without either fact checking or a lot more care in presenting the context (they now show in a frame that looks like a TV and explain it is an attack ad for example and they are quicker to say who is running it).
The Willie Horton case is one where the media would be quick to also tell you about the outrage from many people, including many influential people. So, even if he ran that, the side effect would be counter-attacks alongside it from prominent politicians and other respected individuals. With that context, people tend to more quickly downplay these things and/or tune them out; but, it also back-fires more to the originator - showing them in a more negative light for running it. The MSM would also be quick to show the counter-attack, something Obama did well.
No one is saying this is perfect and it would be a lot better if this crap were not allowed on the air (since it works at a very base level, sadly), but the main broadcast media is more cautious now and that is good. The other good thing, is that the main media gets more glory points by telling you how some other broadcaster is playing into a lie. This is something that finally caught Fox News this year - they also tended to be the butt of a lot of jokes due to their pandering coverage. This also tends to work against people's confidence in that broadcaster, which is good.

jqb said...

The Killian documents were rapidly and -- to my mind -- somewhat convincingly challenged by conservative blogs.

Not only were the Killian documents never proven to be forgeries, but Killian's secretary testified that the content reflected Killian's views.

But must more important is that the case against Bush had already been made years earlier by Molly Ivins and had been repeatedly reinforced with additional evidence. This is where the media (and many others, including Nate here) most obviously and badly failed -- by making it all about Rather, as if a failure by Rather to make his case vindicated Bush. But Bush was guilty as all getout regardless of whether the Killian docs were fakes or Rather is an incompetent fool.

jqb said...

As someone who works as a producer in the mainstream media (just a small market television) station, I thought I'd throw in some thoughts.

And they're just the sort of blind, ignorant, and defensive comments one would expect from such a person. Regardless of such protestations, study after study has shown bias towards business and against labor, towards war and against pacifists, toward government officials and against dissenters, etc. etc. And we just had exposed the Bush administration program to parade pro-war ideologues before the cameras as "experts". But the sorts of people who end up in positions like "ace" here aren't the sort who are willing or able to understand or be aware of such things because those who can have been filtered out by the hiring and promotion process.

jqb said...

It`s not so much racism as distrust of democrats by white America....
Still mad about the civil war


So the civil war was between Democrats and white America?

and the civil rights act.

Sure sounds like racism to me.

Things won`t change for another generation.

Nonsensical drivel.

Hector said...

@elirabbet -
You're exactly right--"Willie Horton"-type villification would not work now because of a general cultural shift making the underlying racism more obvious and odious. And that's totally in agreeing with my point--blogger culture is no more relevant to these sorts of social shifts than MSM election reporting.

@paulk -
On the other hand, remember "Harold, call me"? It may have lost Harold Ford the 2006 election. And it was NOT under-reported. Things have changed, but not that much. It seems the exploitation of racism can still go a long way, Atwater or no.

I wish it were otherwise.

Ace said...

And they're just the sort of blind, ignorant, and defensive comments one would expect from such a person. Regardless of such protestations, study after study has shown bias towards business and against labor, towards war and against pacifists, toward government officials and against dissenters, etc. etc. And we just had exposed the Bush administration program to parade pro-war ideologues before the cameras as "experts". But the sorts of people who end up in positions like "ace" here aren't the sort who are willing or able to understand or be aware of such things because those who can have been filtered out by the hiring and promotion process.

You're one of the people who would get those emails about liberal bias and probably explode. :)

I'm not sure how you are aware of how the hiring process works, but politics never come up. It's not as if there's a litmus test. A news director probably looks at someone's tape for about 20 or 30 seconds. If they like what they see, the applicant may get another few minutes of viewing. It's mostly about how a person looks, sounds, and tells a narrative. If you're able to see political bias in that, please point it out. It's also not like people are weeded out if their views don't fall in line. Find me the study that shows newsrooms are purged to remain ideologically pure and I might believe some of your claims.

Again, I wouldn't argue that no such bias exists, but you're thinking of the media as some large mass that operates like a hive mind with a single intent to deceive. It sure is a dramatic tale, but it's hardly reality.

I actually don't plan to stay in news as a profession as the pay is rather poor and the opportunities for advancement are pretty poor. They need to pay me more to drink the Kool-Aid. :)

And I'm not going to go out of my way to defend an industry that has traded substance for chatter. The chatter is more popular, but it just adds to the noise. That's my biggest criticism of the media. It's all about "sides" and "balance" and ideas like that. The world of blogs does little to help that trend, though.

It seems you barely read my thoughts before tossing our your canned response. I probably did drone on for too long.

Walter Mondale said...

Hello ace, thanks for sharing your insider knowledge of the news media with us.

That's what I like about 538 so much: it brings together a lot of people that seek information and know what they are talking about.

I enjoyed your comment. It's good to take off our tinfoil hats now and then and remind us that it's not all about the one big right-wing conspiracy. And no, you didn't drone on for too long. ;-)

PaulK said...

@Hector, "remember "Harold, call me"?" - I agree that even with exposure, these things can work in a very close race. But, look at Dole: her atheist ad blew up in her face and probably cost her the election; it was the outraged media that countered what could have been an effective ad.
The Ford race is one where racism was already a major factor, and that ad, close to the election (Oct) maybe pushed it over the edge, although that is not clear - there were other factors that came into play (Corker won by 3 and they had been up and down all that Fall). That race had a lot of "undecideds" among Dems, which is the normal racist solution in the South (vs. the Bradley effect which is not common), so it is not clear they ever would have voted for Ford. Part of the difference is that now the media handles these and how it shows them differently, including a lot more outrage from the media (vs. just telling us that Cohen was upset for example). What is interesting is that even Corker asked the RNC to stop showing those ads, but they did not. So, that probably protected Corker from the blow-back. It is hard to say, but I think that if it were tried now, the impact on the RNC would be much stronger due to far more outrage from the media; as we have learned, the RNC itself is losing a lot of credibility. When this kind of scurrilous attack was a 527 (e.g. SBVT), it could just dissolve after the election, so no long term harm. Much harder for the RNC, especially as this crosses over to other States.
But, as I said, these ads do work, sadly. What is changing is the political cost of using them.

信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,

徵信 said...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇


外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇

外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要打工兼差打工,兼差,八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,便服店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店日領上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作兼差打工假日兼職兼職工作酒店兼差兼差打工兼差日領工作晚上兼差工作酒店工作酒店上班酒店打工兼職兼差兼差工作酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領假日兼職兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有鋼琴酒吧又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領現領
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、想要兼職、有缺錢的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的賺錢,酒店和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,