I didn't get around to discussing it this past weekend, but I still think it important to bring up because it allows me to examine the idea of polls, and how the media, at least in my opinion, grossly misuses them.
Polls are useful. I believe it is important to try and measure public opinion and attempt to gather a general sentiment of how the country is feeling. I believe polls are wonderful things to supplement news. Somewhere along the line, unfortunately, the media began to think the polls themselves are news.
This is problematic for a number of reasons. Polls are notoriously unreliable. If a poll shows an obvious trend (say, 80% of the country disapproving of the President) then it is probably applicable. When it comes to elections, however, polls should not be the end-all be-all. We need not remember past the fiasco of the New Hampshire Democratic Primary to se evidence of this. In sports, the saying goes "that's why they play the games." Well, that's why they have the elections. Yet every elections the pundits would rather discuss who is leading in the polls than any sort of substantive policy issues. Obviously, this is because they do not understand complex isssues, and must rely on such horserace-type coverage. Media critics have labored on this point for some time, and I need not harp on it much more. Let us discuss the article at hand...
Let's start with the headline. 'McCain Seen as Less Likely to Bring Change, Poll Finds." While it is relieving that America believes the candidate of the incumbent party is less likely to bring change, it is certainly not news. If this were the other way around it might be worht reporting.
Now I can see one making the argument, that this is pertinent insofar as John McCain has attempted to take up the mantle of change in recent weeks, but even still, the results of the New York Times poll, and Adam Nagourney's overblown interpretation of these results need not be the only front page headline regarding the election.
Now I understand NYT probably paid plenty of money to have this poll conducted, and I'm sure it was done very scientifically and does glean some incite into the current opinion of Americans. However, when one considers the problematic nature of polling we have just discussed, should one be inclined to believe this is the most important election coverage on this particular day? The rest of the front page was dominated by news of the financial crisis befalling our globe. Perhaps these front page inches could have better spent discussing the candidate's ideas for fixing the mess that our economy is in? No, apparently the public is better served by finding out that the 47 percent of McCain supporters are energized by the Republican ticket.
I always laugh when the media puts so much effort into scrutinizing these polls. Supposedly they are a measure of what the public is thinking. So why is it so important for the media to tell the public what they are thinking, and even better why they are thinking it. Does anybody else see this as condescending. If I approached a young white woman on the street and flat out told her that she was voting for Barack Obama because she is a white woman under 45, I don't think I would get a particularly warm reception, but apparently this is how one becomes the top political reporter at the New York Times, go figure.
No comments:
Post a Comment