Or, to put it another way, why to that poll, as opposed to others? For that matter, why the equal amount of hysteria in the corporate media about a recent Washington Post/ABC poll, which also shows the Republicans with a statistically insignificant lead in the generic congressional vote?
Or to put it yet another way, why to either of these polls, when other equally reliable (if not more reliable) polls show the Democrats the lead in that vote? Why not talk about the fact that Rasmussen Reports, no one's idea of a bleeding-heart liberal pollster, has in fact consistently shown the Democrats with a slight lead in the generic vote from February 9 to the present--an entire month?
Look, I am not pretending that the current political environment isn't challenging for Democrats. It's a mid-year election in the sixth year of a Democratic presidency. Obama's popularity has sunk, and the ACA is still unpopular with a large number of voters--especially in red states, a significant number of which will be in play in 2014. The truth of the matter is that, with those variables in the election formula, the Republicans actually should have a much higher, more consistent lead in the polls than they've had. The fact, however, is that they haven't. Call it the Tea Party effect, call it the Bush-Cheney syndrome, call it what you will--but, statistically, there's no real traction for the GOP. Why is the corporate media pretending otherwise?
Because they're the corporate media, that's why. The major traditional outlets--broadcast and print--are now owned by a handful of multinational conglomerates whose loyalty to the truth extends no further than the bottom line, and who long ago destroyed the walls between the editorial and business sides of journalism. They know which party will grease their palms the most--and they're doing everything they can to expand that party's power.
One need look no further than the Sunday talk shows to see the truth of this. There was a time (and it ended not that long ago) when these programs, priding themselves on at least the pretense of journalistic integrity, would have equal number of Democrats and Republicans as guests. Not any more. Today's shows are a sad case in point: excluding guests with no clear party affiliation, the guest roster included only four Democrats versus nine Republicans or conservatives. So much for fairness and balance.
I would be more concerned about this if I believed that print and broadcast media still possessed the same clout that they possessed up until the early 1990s. But they don't. In the Internet age, people don't just receive the news, they share it with each other. They build up networks of their own in the process--networks not only of people, but of funding, organization and planning. This is how progressives triumphed in 2008 and 2012. And it may very well be how they will triumph in 2014. Truthfully, because our communications process is much less centralized, it's a lot harder to measure public opinion on a broad scale.
As for the corporate media, forget about them as a guide to public opinion. Their audience is older, less-Internet oriented and, therefore, far more conservative. Their coverage is going to reflect that, and, quite frankly, so will the polling results that they publish and push.
Which just means they will end up going down the drain with the party to which they've hitched their increasingly wheel-less wagon. Don't believe them. And don't give up on the possibility of success this fall. Work for it. Your democracy and your future both depend on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment