After a long (and exhilarating) day and night following the election
returns (I got home early from work and set up in my home bunker about 2:00
pm PT, and am just now about to leave my bunker (to get some lectures done
for class tomorrow) at 12:47 am PT.

I wound up watching a lot of CBS, CNN and NBC/MSNBC. As suspicious as I was
going into this about the quality of the coverage, I thought all 4 of these
organizations did a fair to good job, at least compared to my very low
expectations.

But what really has got me frustrated is how they reported the pre-election
polling in the 3 days leading up to the election (probably longer, but I
did not really start watching the TV coverage closely until this weekend),
and their failure to own up to their embarrassing errors tonight.

Polling guru (perhaps after tonight upgraded to Polling God) Nate Silver
was the source of a lot of controversy over the last 6 months or so. I
happen to have followed his blog very closely for a long time (I even
purchased an online subscription to the NYT so I could check it several
times a day in recent months). Nate has very consistently predicted about a
2 percentage point win for Obama in the popular vote, a win in 10 of 11
"battleground" states (I include PA and MI here, since the Republican RCP
defined them that way), and an Electoral College victory of either 315 or
332 (depending on how you look at it). It is too soon to tell for sure what
the popular vote margin will be (a lot of votes in CA and FL and Ohio have
still not been counted as of this writing), but I have read estimates that
it will be 2-3 points when all is said and done). Nate nailed every single
one of the BG states, which also means he correctly predicated all 50
states and the DC, by a more accurate margin than his competitors, and
obviously called the winner correctly, getting the EV very close or
exactly, and probably getting the popular vote margin very close as well.

In the weeks and days running up to the election Republicans and TV Pundits
in general dumped all over Nate, calling him either a partisan hack or just
a narcissistic media whore. It was said that anyone who says they can tell
you who is going to win this election, and by a specific amount, is lying.
And I heard about a million times in the 3 days prior to tonight on various
TV stations that the election was "too close to call". All of the critics
were dead wrong, and Silver was uncannily right - yet with all of my
channel surfing tonight I did not see one person acknowledge that, or
apologize to him.

This illustrates the primary bias of the so-called "mainstream media" - it
is clearly not pro Obama, or pro-liberal, since they dumped all over the
person who was giving an analysis that happened to be pro-Obama this cycle
(he was actually more negative - and again more accurate, about Obama's
margins than his competition last cycle, but his partisan critics never
seemed to be able to understand that). The bias of course is to create
dramatic and entertaining television that will attract more viewers and
sell more soap. I am well aware of this bias of course, but I don't recall
many more glaring and shameful examples of it, as in this case it caused
them to clearly distort and misreport the main story they were supposed to
be telling. The election was always close, and certainly it was possible
that Romney could have won (Nate gave him about an 8% chance as of last
night - the same as trying to fill an inside straight), but any honest and
accurate reporting would have started by telling the public that the
chances were very high that President Obama would be re-elected. Doing so
would have also focused the public on what the main storyline was all
night, which was the percent of white voters. Romney's only chance to win
was that the state polls (that Nate relies on so much) were underestimating
the percentage of white voters in the final vote. Instead of course, the
Obama organization (and here the President, in his amazing acceptance
speech, got it exactly right when he said that his campaign people were the
best in history; nobody has ever organized, managed and strategized a
political campaign better than David Pluffe and David Axelrod) got the
white vote percentage almost exactly right.

This was important not just to predict the outcome, but to understand it -
as several pundits eventually did share with the public, the result of this
campaign makes clear that if the Republican Party wants to be viable at the
national level in the future, it is going to have to figure out a way to
appeal more to Blacks, Asians and especially Hispanics (and to women and
young adults). The American electorate is getting less white every 2 years
- George Bush is no doubt the last candiate who will ever be elected
President of the United States by getting 60% of the white vote (the same
as Romney tonight) and less than 40% of the non-white vote. From Richard
Nixon in 1968 through George Bush in 2004, Republicans were very succesful
winning national elections by pandering to the fears and prejudices of
white Americans, and scapegoating especially Blacks and Hispanics. That
strategy is never ever going to work again, and the sooner the Republican
party gets that through their seemingly insane brains, the sooner we will
get back to a reasonably functional congress and a reasonably productive
two-party system that can disagree about broad values and solutions, but
find common ground to solve major problems.

By not accurately reporting the election in the weeks leading up to it, TV
news organizations made it more difficult to tell this story and set it in
its proper context. They may have helped Hillary Clinton (or more likely
one of those Texas Hispanic twins) get elected in 2016, but they did not
server their viewers, or their country, well.

-- 
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en

Reply via email to