The spin machine is like an insatiable monster
Nice read here (for those who can be bothered enough - personally, it was fun for me to read it):
I Hate Presidential Poll Numbers (or: An Analysis of Why Donald Trump Will Win)
Some select pieces and bits:
"Rarely does a day go by without the media telling us the latest poll numbers and what they mean. And if the election was held today, do you know who would win? Certainly not the Constitution, which specifies that the Congress- and not the media- determines the election date."
...
"Do you know who had really, really low favorability numbers, so much so that they didn’t even bother putting him on the ballot in some states? Abraham Lincoln. And Lincoln became the greatest President in our nation’s history."
...
"The news media wants things to get ugly. The pundits like when things get ugly. This boosts ratings. But it really doesn’t. Heck, the TV audience for five political hacks sitting around a table offering worthless psycho-babble is less than the number of people watching re-runs of Suddenly Susan. So you might as well deliver real news about real things. What have you got to lose?"
He has a point, that columnist. Basically, poll numbers are not news. They have nothing to do with news. And that is the whole point. The problem with today's journalism is that it has abandoned its mission, namely to inform people. Now it is all about opinion, about spin. It is all about the circuses.
For example, here is a strange thing. There is hardly any mention of Bernie Sanders' win in Indiana - anywhere near the top media pages/screens. Sure, you might be able to find a couple of articles, buried deep among the others. And yet, his name barely appears on the Google News aggregate page. The Washington Post and NYT both report the win but say it means nothing, and will not change the outcome. I am not really a fan of conspiracy theories, far from it... but come on! What is going on here?
There was a naive time when I used to believe journalism was all about reporting of the facts - that is why I got involved in it in the first place (I have done my best to stay away from political journalism, though - and it seems that was the right choice). But not any more. Well, depends on the type of journalism that we are talking about, actually. But political journalism is truly a mess.
Now, I am not a big fan of populists with little substance. And it is clear at this point that it is highly improbable that Bernie would clinch the nomination now, looking at American electoral history. Granted. But on the other hand, the way journalists and reporters go out of their way to belittle his considerable achievements during this primary, is astonishing. Victories are mentioned almost as an aside (with the quick reassurance that it does not mean anything in the long term). And defeats are poured over endlessly by talking heads on CNN, always ending with the exasperated question of "when will he give in to Clinton?" Love him or hate him, but do not demean a man who has campaigned hard on the issues a lot of Americans care about. Even if he might be lacking in the substance department on some of those issues.
Not to mention the popularity contest that the article talks about. How exactly is the candidates "favourability" news, and how would it affect the election result six months from now, is beyond me.
Journalism used to be far better from about the 30s to the 80s. I did not live at that time, but I have read a lot of stuff from that epoch. After the Reagan-Thatcher era, though, media ownership changed considerably with owners like Murdoch, and Conrad Black, both with right-wing political agendas buying up major media outlets: The Telegraph, Fox News, etc.
I have witnessed many journalists who were considered liberal, getting fired because they covered labour, social issues, or the environment (I have mostly focused on the latter throughout my rather short career). The editorials have moved to the right, investigative journalism has declined, and columnists have been turned into stars - if they cooperate with these owners, of course. And the public has obliged by preferring superficial, shiny, scandalous things to deeper insight. And that has been the beginning of the long agonising death of journalism. Add the ongoing information revolution, where the flood of info has backfired by drowning out substance at the expense of the above-mentioned circuses - and this whole thing has started sliding down ever faster, into a direction that has become as predictable as it is depressing.
I Hate Presidential Poll Numbers (or: An Analysis of Why Donald Trump Will Win)
Some select pieces and bits:
"Rarely does a day go by without the media telling us the latest poll numbers and what they mean. And if the election was held today, do you know who would win? Certainly not the Constitution, which specifies that the Congress- and not the media- determines the election date."
...
"Do you know who had really, really low favorability numbers, so much so that they didn’t even bother putting him on the ballot in some states? Abraham Lincoln. And Lincoln became the greatest President in our nation’s history."
...
"The news media wants things to get ugly. The pundits like when things get ugly. This boosts ratings. But it really doesn’t. Heck, the TV audience for five political hacks sitting around a table offering worthless psycho-babble is less than the number of people watching re-runs of Suddenly Susan. So you might as well deliver real news about real things. What have you got to lose?"
He has a point, that columnist. Basically, poll numbers are not news. They have nothing to do with news. And that is the whole point. The problem with today's journalism is that it has abandoned its mission, namely to inform people. Now it is all about opinion, about spin. It is all about the circuses.
For example, here is a strange thing. There is hardly any mention of Bernie Sanders' win in Indiana - anywhere near the top media pages/screens. Sure, you might be able to find a couple of articles, buried deep among the others. And yet, his name barely appears on the Google News aggregate page. The Washington Post and NYT both report the win but say it means nothing, and will not change the outcome. I am not really a fan of conspiracy theories, far from it... but come on! What is going on here?
There was a naive time when I used to believe journalism was all about reporting of the facts - that is why I got involved in it in the first place (I have done my best to stay away from political journalism, though - and it seems that was the right choice). But not any more. Well, depends on the type of journalism that we are talking about, actually. But political journalism is truly a mess.
Now, I am not a big fan of populists with little substance. And it is clear at this point that it is highly improbable that Bernie would clinch the nomination now, looking at American electoral history. Granted. But on the other hand, the way journalists and reporters go out of their way to belittle his considerable achievements during this primary, is astonishing. Victories are mentioned almost as an aside (with the quick reassurance that it does not mean anything in the long term). And defeats are poured over endlessly by talking heads on CNN, always ending with the exasperated question of "when will he give in to Clinton?" Love him or hate him, but do not demean a man who has campaigned hard on the issues a lot of Americans care about. Even if he might be lacking in the substance department on some of those issues.
Not to mention the popularity contest that the article talks about. How exactly is the candidates "favourability" news, and how would it affect the election result six months from now, is beyond me.
Journalism used to be far better from about the 30s to the 80s. I did not live at that time, but I have read a lot of stuff from that epoch. After the Reagan-Thatcher era, though, media ownership changed considerably with owners like Murdoch, and Conrad Black, both with right-wing political agendas buying up major media outlets: The Telegraph, Fox News, etc.
I have witnessed many journalists who were considered liberal, getting fired because they covered labour, social issues, or the environment (I have mostly focused on the latter throughout my rather short career). The editorials have moved to the right, investigative journalism has declined, and columnists have been turned into stars - if they cooperate with these owners, of course. And the public has obliged by preferring superficial, shiny, scandalous things to deeper insight. And that has been the beginning of the long agonising death of journalism. Add the ongoing information revolution, where the flood of info has backfired by drowning out substance at the expense of the above-mentioned circuses - and this whole thing has started sliding down ever faster, into a direction that has become as predictable as it is depressing.