[NYTr] FAIR: Poll-Obsessed Media Focus on Strategy Over Substance

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

FAIR - Dec 11, 2007
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3227

Poll-Obsessed Media Focus on Strategy Over Substance

Op-ed published in the Seattle Times

By Peter Hart

With just a few weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, polls are
providing pundits and political junkies with fresh data to spin out a
new round of the usual "who's up, who's down" campaign coverage. But
while the press seems settled on a new narrative for the campaign,
journalists should recall what the polls told them last time around
about who would likely win the Iowa caucuses.

The tone of coverage of the Democratic race seemed to shift when a Nov.
19 ABC/Washington Post poll of likely caucus-goers showed a tight race
among three candidates: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

The difference from the previous survey was within the poll's margin of
error, so the actual data said very little. Much of the media seemed to
think otherwise. "The ground may be shifting," announced NBC anchor
Brian Williams. The Los Angeles Times called it "a shift in momentum in
this crucial state" -- in an article that boiled the race down to just
two candidates, Clinton and Obama.

The Washington Post's write-up was downright confusing -- the Post
mentioned the results were "only marginally different" from their poll
several months prior, yet nonetheless pointed to "significant signs of
progress for Obama -- and harbingers of concern for Clinton."

On ABC, reporter Kate Snow mentioned something most of her colleagues
seemed unconcerned with: the fact that these polls actually tell you
very little about the outcome of the race. Snow recalled that "four
years ago, John Kerry -- who eventually was the Democratic nominee --
he was polling in Iowa at 4 percent."

Indeed, campaign reporters should all remember the lesson of the 2004
Iowa caucus. A little more than a month before Iowa Democrats actually
caucused in January, the poll-obsessed media had narrowed down the
field to two "front-runners": Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri and
Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

"Two See Iowa as Crucial Battleground," announced The Washington Post
on Nov. 29, 2003, billing the race as a "fight rich in substance and
symbolism." A Nov. 9 Post report said that Dean was "for the first
time, threatening to pull away from the pack," and even discussed his
"opening for a quick-kill strategy" by winning Iowa and New Hampshire.

The polling was presumably a key factor leading reporters to reach such
conclusions. A December 2003 Pew poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers
showed Dean leading the pack with 29 percent, followed by Gephardt at
21 percent.

Kerry was in third with 18 percent, followed by John Edwards at 5
percent. A Zogby poll from around the same time had a closer race
between Dean and Gephardt (26 to 22 percent), with Kerry and Edwards
picking up 9 and 5 percent, respectively.

And what happened when Iowa Democrats actually caucused? Kerry won with
37 percent, followed by Edwards at 32 percent. "Front-runners" Dean and
Gephardt finished with 18 and 11 percent, respectively.

The point is not just to note that polls at this stage are hardly
predictive -- though the media acknowledging as much would be a start.
Nor is it to wish that the national press would simply work at finding
a better method of declaring which candidates are "front-runners," and
whose campaigns aren't worth your attention.

The more fundamental problem for the press -- and for American
democracy -- is that the media's overreliance on polls encourages a
kind of political conversation that prioritizes strategic consideration
and tactics over substance.

A recent study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism confirmed
that much of what passes for campaign journalism focuses primarily on
the tactical dimensions of the race (like poll results and fundraising)
and not on the actual policy differences between the candidates.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, former ABC News political director
and current Time magazine editor-at-large Mark Halperin admitted that
most political coverage is built around the notion that you can judge
candidates' potential to be a good president based on how well they run
their campaigns.

Halperin admits he was "wrong," and suggests a change of course:
Journalists "should examine a candidate's public record and full life
as opposed to his or her campaign performance." What a concept. But
then Halperin added a strange qualifier: "But what might appear simple
to a voter can, I know, seem hard for a journalist."

Halperin seems to be saying that if you think it's hard to cover the
substance of electoral politics, it's a good bet you're a campaign
reporter.

That's bad news, to say the least -- and makes it hard to imagine
journalists are going to change any time soon.

******

FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: fair at fair.org