A key finding suggests the media is, for the most part, our of touch with the attitudes of American voters. The media, with its need for front runners, rankings and pedestals to both place candidates upon and then knock off, creates an artificial environment for political campaigns.
______________

The report is the most thorough analysis yet of media coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign and offers both a sober evaluation as well as a dash of guidance on how to improve....They argue that this election could represent a generational struggle in both parties, but that early media coverage failed to capture that fundamental tension.

I believe this underscores the reason why "national polls" leading most news shows continue to receive undue significance in a primary system that is dominated by a few early states. Instead of reporting the feelings and views of these early voters, almost all the time is spent disecting why and how each candidate stands in national popularity.

At least its encouraging to see that the electorate tends to feel more as I do as it regards the media's inflated role not as commentators, but as cheerleaders for particular candidates. That should never be their role. They should report the facts, not put them into a self-serving narrative which discounts the fact that a large cross-section of American voters have yet to decide upon a single candidate. It used to be that was what campaigning was about, informing the electorate where candidates stand on the issues of relevance. Now its just a glorified beauty contest bereft of substance, only reflective of an elitist view on style and other finger-to-the-wind prognostications.

journalists face a conundrum: In a campaign that started as early as this one, why spend resources in a detailed analysis of candidates views and stances when the public is not that engaged?

Better question-why spend so much time covering the campaign, if no one is interested?

Seems like a political death watch-not wanting to be the outlet that misses some candidate do something fatally stupid.

Seems like a political death watch-not wanting to be the outlet that misses some candidate do something fatally stupid.

I think that this is a large part of the problem. Is there really one thing that is "fatally stupid" as it regards the unlimited amount of issues and stances that any politician might take during a campaign? If this were true every Republican running except Ron Paul should be taken out back and shot for their comical recitations on Iraq, Iran, torture, Gitmo, and this doesn't even touch Rudy's insanity and meglomania!

What the polls say on a national basis doesn't matter compared to the stances on issues that the candidates take. More time should be spent fleshing out the nuance and less time focusing on the opposition research and soundbites. If we want better leaders we have to have better understandings of just who these people actually are before we settle on an image instead of learning later that the person we were sold is the opposite of what we wanted.

Ahhh, what a country. We have freedom of the press. It's free to not know what the fuck is going on. We the people are free to find out what ever we want. If it's bullshit or the unadulterated truth, it's up to us to decipher it for ourselves. The media is a problem, and a solution, all in itself.

Corporate media is owned, controlled, and dictated to by their owners. They control what makes the air waves and what doesn't. They also push their corporate owners commercial agendas as legitimate news.
The same corporations that own mainstream media are the same corporations that are profiteering off the war.
It's bullshit!

The media is a problem, and a solution, all in itself.

Yes it is, but so are we when we swallow whatever the media tells us hook, line, and sinker. I don't need to tell anyone here because thats why we do what we do. We don't implicitly trust anyone to deliver the unvarnished truth without first understanding their own agenda and reasons for what they report. Unfortunately, we aren't the majority, and for too many people the truth becomes whatever someone tells them it is.

Don't be a lemming....if you truly want change, vote Paul and Kucunich in your respective primaries. If you want more of the same vote Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.

Television and radio has to broadcast simple stuff because serious content would be too out of character with the commercials it broadcasts every 8 minutes or so to keep all that lovely money rolling in that feeds the corporate bottom line quarter after quarter. Not to mention the previews, logos, branding and captioning. There is simply a conflict of interest in what they supposedly are about and what they really need to deliver which is money. This doesn't matter all that much when it's CSI or Survivor but they have to do the same on the "news" channels too. That's why those channels love polls, political advertising, factoids, scandals, celebrities, lists and who is up or down instead of information.

"Don't be a lemming....if you truly want change, vote Paul and Kucunich in your respective primaries. If you want more of the same vote Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.

Posted by ride_on at 2007-10-29 04:20 PM"

Yep. Unfortunately, because the system is so fucked up, the only effect this will have is to give you the right to buy and display a "Don't blame me, I voted for Paul" bumper sticker.

Yep. Unfortunately, because the system is so fucked up, the only effect this will have is to give you the right to buy and display a "Don't blame me, I voted for Paul" bumper sticker.

I already have my pre-order in.

"...if you truly want change, vote Paul and Kucunich (sic) in your respective primaries."

I think I have news for you. The last thing that American voters want is change. The present, as embodied by Bush, Rudy or Hillary, is ALWAYS better than the unknown of meaningful reform. My favorite whipping boys, them nasty corporate boardrooms, understand this and can get you to vote their way with minimal financial outlay. We've seen some great change-makers in my lifetime. All also-rans. herm

AHA...I beat the Corkster!

" Obama enjoyed the friendliest coverage of the presidential field;"

So much for TR's victimization of Obama by the media conspiracy theory.

Reporters focus on polls and tactics because it's easy. Reporters are lazy: Nobody wants to wallow into weeks of research to understand health insurance (for example) and spend weeks writing it so people can understand.

It's easier to retype today's Gallup press release. Plus, you get to go on "This Week" and talk about the gaffe of the week, and how it affected the polls. That extra TV money is important to aging hacks like Cokie Roberts, who's saving for retirement.

Vernon...

You're right on point!

this could all be settled very simply...
on each ballot one choice at the bottom
none of the above

Contrary to what you've been taught in school, we live in a society divided by class. Corporate and Trust money lives indefinately whereas people do not. The rich have one simple need, they want control of everything. Politicians that wage class warfare for the rich, while pulling the wool over the eyes of working stiffs, are worth their weight in gold. TV and radio are the vehicle for their bullshit.

The media is another Corporation. They hold a stranglehold position with the wealthy in all political fights over the distribution of goods and services. Their stranglehold is the cost of advertising which feeds Political Corruption. This continuous subtle undermining of Democracy has slowly eroded human rights and enlarged Corporate rights. The changes take place slowly, so that it is difficult for citizens to feel the direction and direct personal cost.

We are in the middle of a thirty year decline in our living standards. Most Americans have adapted by becoming working couples and complain little. There is a three year waiting list for 200 foot luxury boats while WalMart's revenues decline.

Bogus is an excellent word choice, but this study is another distraction from the systematic undermining of Democracy that's in progress.

Nutcase = ProfessorBates' evil twin

Danforth...

I believe what Nutcase is referring to is existing stores YTD, not the new ones padding the bottom line. Does that change the calculation?

TR,

I was taking the data from the Fortune 500 site. It ends with the FY ending 1/31/07.

Danforth...

Cool. I was just asking because I've seen economic reports that most of the big boxes' existing store sales have been down due to exactly what Nutcase was saying: Income disparity.

While Saks and others catering to high-end clients are experiencing record sales, the opposite has been true at the lower end of the spectrum.

The amount of money each Walmart customer is spending has declined. Splitting hairs over Walmart data is just another distraction from the big picture. The living standards of the average American are in a long slow decline, somewhat clouded by two incomes displacing one. Average Corporate profits are up and average wages are down. This trend is disrepective of whether we elect Democrats or Republicans. But the two parties provide a critical illusion of choice.

A key finding suggests the media is, for the most part, our of touch with the attitudes of American voters.

It is out of touch because it is 85% liberal and insulated from other viewpoints.

For example. Any average person in anytown USA could have told you 8 months ago that Rudy was going to be at the top of the pack in the GOP campaign. But these liberal morons that are the "chattering class" were tone deaf because they have a preconceived notion about Republicans, and red state america.

It is out of touch because it is 85% liberal and insulated from other viewpoints.

C'mon Bowa, read the data. This isn't about left/right, its about information or the lack thereof, so that people are unable to make informed choices. The media is a corporate whore, nothing more, nothing less. Individuals might have agendas, but corporations only have two, the bottom line and maintaining the good graces of the powers that be so the gravy train can continue to deliver on schedule.

" Splitting hairs over Walmart data is just another distraction from the big picture."

Read my post history. I'm very touchy regarding economic terms when they don't apply, like recession when we're not in one, or tax cuts increase revenues when they don't once inflation is factored, or revenues declined, when revenues actually increased.