Dissecting Post Coverage of the VP Debate

On October 11, 2012, Vice President Joe Biden and US Representative Paul Ryan squared off in the one and only Vice Presidential debate. There is a lot of analysis of the debate itself going on... but I want to take a different approach. I'd like to actually exam the post-debate coverage and see what we can learn from that coverage itself.

 

When debate had ended, I flipped between 3 networks (intentionally avoiding FOX News) and was greeted by the same thing on each: journalists lauding Biden for his strong performance and for ‘taking command’ of the debate by not allowing Ryan to make points that might score with voters. They talked about how pleasant and reassuring his constant smiling was, and how it made him seem more personable. But the best was when one pundit referred to some of his ‘folksy’ comments and compared him to having appeal similar to Sarah Palin! (Seriously?)

 

And yet, the very next day the REAL results began coming in and – while neither can claim a knock-out punch – the notion that Biden ‘won’ or was seen as ‘in control of the debate’ seems to be unraveling rapidly as actual normal people weigh-in. The media is in a tail-spin trying to run interference for the Obama/Biden campaign, twisting themselves into pretzels attempting to explain away the results that are now being documented.

 

CNN Poll: Debate watchers split on who won VP debate

 

Nowhere is this better seen than in that bastion of journalist integrity – CNN. In this single article we learn a great deal:

1.      Poll results qualified as being taken from a Republican-leaning area (when is the last time you saw it reported when a poll was taken from a Democrat-leaning area?)

2.      Specific notation that the “poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans” because it is only from those who watched the debate (again, when is the last time you saw that qualification being made / reported?)

3.      A poll in which “one-third of the respondents who participated in tonight's survey identified themselves as Republicans” (aka 33.3%), 34% Independents, and 31% Democrats is dismissed because it “indicates that the sample of debate watchers is more Republican than an average of recent CNN polls of all Americans.” (which confirms for us CNN polling generally is more Democrat-slanted)

To be fair, the sampling for CNN’s survey is only 381 people with a 5% margin error – making the results basically irrelevant. And yet look at how hard the media feels the need to explain them away!

 

Polls show Joe Biden is vice presidential debate winner (an intriguing headline on its own – since only 2 polls are covered and 1 of the polls actually says Ryan won)

 

But if you’re a Democrat, it’s okay; CNN assures us that this CBS News’ poll gave Biden the big win. However, when you look at the info on the CBS News poll, the survey population is only up to a whopping 431 people. But we are again assured, this time by CBS, that these results can be trusted because CBS also declared Romney the winner of the first debate “using the same basic methodology.”

 

We know that the fairly evenly split group that CNN talked to basically called the debate a tie. But the CBS News group not only gave Biden a commanding debate victory (13%); they pretty much ranked Biden higher in every single question asked following the debate. So let’s dig a bit into exactly who these “uncommitted voters” were in the CBS News poll.

 

Poll: Biden takes debate over Ryan, uncommitted voters say

 

VERBATIM FROM THE END OF THIS ARTICLE (my emphasis added):

 

The "uncommitted voters" who participated in this poll are either undecided or have chosen a candidate but say they could still change their minds. (If you've chosen a candidate, you are NOT "uncommitted", you've acted on your gut preference already.) They are less likely than voters overall to identify with either of the two major political parties: 58 percent call themselves independents (does this mean they are REGISTERED Independents or just consider themselves to be independent?), 17 percent identify as Republicans, and 25 percent say they are Democrats.

 

This CBS News poll was conducted online using GfK's web-enabled KnowledgePanel?, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 431 uncommitted voters who have agreed to watch the debate.

 

Oh, BTW, this poll ALSO has a margin of error of 5% - making its results statistically invalid as well. As if 381 people or 431 people could possibly reflect the views of over 40 MILLION voting age Americans; and even if they could – do you really think on a national level there are 25% Democrats to only 17% Republicans… how is that “representative of the U.S. population?” And yet again, look how the media seems almost desperate to create a narrative in which Biden is the winner.

 

Joe Biden's smiling: Was there a method to his madness?

 

This analysis contains what may be my favorite of Biden's performance. It purports that not only were Biden's actions wrong... but that it was completely intentional, planned, and that he was coached to do exactly what he did for the sole purpose of benefiting President Obama:

 

So the challenge for Obama (in the 2nd debate) will be to carefully calibrate his next performance, correcting his previous mistakes without making it seem like he’s overcompensating.

 

And that’s where Biden’s incessant, aggressive smiling comes in. By taking his own animation level right through the roof, Biden may have given Obama a little more room to emote on Tuesday, without seeming like he’s overdoing it.

 

Because everyone just saw what overdoing it looks like – thanks to Biden.

 

So why, you may ask, would the media be working so hard to make Jokin’ Joe look so good? Actually, the gracious folks at CBS News provided that answer in the very last paragraph of their story above: “Finally, even a draw is probably a victory for the Obama campaign. The Romney/Ryan campaign came into the debate riding a wave of momentum from Romney’s victory in the first presidential debate. A tie in the vice presidential debate may effectively blunt that momentum, and allow President Obama to turn the tide in the next presidential debate.” (In other words, they admit that Biden really didn’t do as great as they want us to think… so they are trying to do their best to slow down Romney/Ryan to give Obama a chance to reclaim his mantle of superiority.)

 

Just watch – no matter how Obama performs in the 2nd debate, he’ll be the hands-down winner. In fact, the media pundits probably already have scripted what their responses (and the post-polling results) will be...

 

How's the View From Where You're Standing?

One of the best things about an individual viewpoint is that everyone has one.  Nope, not trying to just sound like a smart-aleck, I'm saying that everyone - and I do mean EVERYONE - has an opinion.  Sure there are those who say they are 'neutral' or 'moderate' or 'open-minded', but ultimately they have a world view that colors everything they see and hear.  And yet we wonder why our nation still seems so divided; even as we try to figure out who is to blame for it aside from ourselves.

Case in point: the sad story of Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal.  In the story Almost no oil recovered from sand berms, the reader is treated to several paragraphs about Gov. Jindal’s colossal failure building sand berms that apparently were a complete waste of money.  But if you read the entire story, you’ll eventually see that the same commission quoted as condemning the sand berms for not really doing what they were established to do as a short-term solution goes on to agree that in the context of long-term coastal restoration they will be a “significant step forward.”  So, does that mean the expense was worthwhile or not?  If you don’t like Jindal, you’ll focus on the short-term failure to criticize him; but if you like Jindal, you’ll focus on the long-term success to laud him.  The difference isn’t in what happened or in Jindal – the difference is the eye of the beholder.

But then there are those ‘reports’ of how the economy is (or isn’t) doing.  Back on November 23, the Associated Press told us that the Fed lowers outlook for economy through 2011.  But the very next day, Reuters reported that Data hints U.S. recovery is becoming self-sustaining.  In the first story we were told: “Federal Reserve officials have become more pessimistic in their economic outlook through next year and have lowered their forecast for growth.”  Then in the second story we were told: “New U.S. claims for jobless benefits hit their lowest level in more than two years last week while consumer spending rose for a fourth straight month in October, suggesting the economy is nearing a self-sustaining recovery.” 

So is the outlook for the economy in 2011 good or bad?  The answer may be found a poll conducted by Bloomberg and reported by The Daily Caller on December 13: Poll: Majority of Americans say they are worse off than they were two years ago.  Among the results of this poll were “In a sweeping poll released by Bloomberg today, 66 percent of respondents said that they felt that “things in the nation…have… gotten off on the wrong track,” compared to just 27 percent who felt the country was heading in the right direction. 51 percent of respondents said they were worse off now than they were two years ago.”  And if that wasn’t bad enough, there was also this concerning news for President Obama: “Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the budget deficit, which 60 percent voicing disapproval and only 31 percent approving of his policy. Respondents also rebuked Obama for his performance creating jobs, with 55 percent disapproving.”

Is the economy improving and growing stronger?  Are President Obama’s policies helping the economy?  Were the sand berms a waste of money?  Each question can foster debate because perceptions demand multiple right answers – with the holder of each answer convinced that their position is indeed the sole correct one. 

But one thing is certain, President Obama is keenly aware that if he is to be personally successful in his goal to be re-elected in 2012, he needs to do a better job of guiding perceptions of himself.  Which brings us to the great tax compromise of 2011.  When Bush 41 reneged on his “Read my lips; no new taxes” pledge, he paid a very heavy political price for it.  His goal was to extend an olive branch to the Democrats who now had a greater Congressional power base.  In the end, they got him to agree to an increase in taxes and then turned around and ridiculed him for breaking his pledge.  President Obama is apparently attempting the same tactic in reverse.  It's not just taxes: Obama defends his credibility discusses how President Obama not only blindsided his own party with a deal to keep reduced tax rates in place but that he also angered organized labor with a call to freeze Federal worker wages.  What would motivate him to take such actions and risk the ire of his own party?  The answer is obviously found in the results of the 2010 mid-term elections that will strip his party of majority status in the House and nearly cost them the same in the Senate… and poll results such as those reported by Bloomberg above.

People will continue to see what they want to see and frame information in the context that they choose.  The question will be – to what extent will the 2010 election results alter people’s perceptions?  It will also be interesting to see who comes out the political winners in two years… will the Democrats return to power with a triumphantly re-elected Obama leading the charge as they are vindicated and embraced once again by the voters?  Or will the Republicans win over the hearts and minds of the people, establishing themselves as the perceived defenders of fiscal responsibility, and possibly sweeping another fresh face such as Jindal into the White House?

Time will tell.  Which is a good thing, since most people will never tell you the viewpoint they hold to!

And the Universe Continues to Twist...

To listen to some commentators, you'd think that the recent election results either mean the end of civilization as we know or it's dawn of a new era for humanity.  Frankly, it's neither.  While there were a few new wrinkles added thanks to the unpredictable "Tea Party" aspect, in the end we still have the same number of elected officials with the same job to do.  While certainly it is important to ensure those who fill those jobs are the best (based upon the opinion of the majority of voters), but the universe does not revolve around them.

The Republican take-back of Congress and many other state-level elections didn't really surprise me.  President Obama's continued denial that voters have said they want an end to his pseudo-Socialist policies doesn't surprise me.  MSNBC staffing their election night coverage with their partisan Liberal commentators who used the time to mock and challenge Republicans rather than report the news as it unfolded didn't surprise me.  However, I've been reading some other tidbits that have left me just sitting back and thinking to myself: "huh... really??" 

First off, have you seen the story of Jammie Thomas-Rasset?  She's the mom from Minnesota that the recording industry has decided to make the poster child of music downloading piracy.  Don't get me wrong, I don't condone theft in any manner, but I can't help but think there may be a wee bit of disproportional punishment going on here.  The record companies want this lady to pay $1.5 MILLION for a whopping (24) songs that she's accused of illegally downloading.  So here we are in an age when Lindsay Lohan can get away with flaunting the law, when Charlie Rangel can have a list of ethics violations against him and still win a 21st term to Congress by a huge margin, and when the first Black President of the United States can get a pass for invoking "move to the back of the bus" when talking about his political opponents.  But don't you DARE illegally download two dozen songs or we're gonna take you down!  Does anyone else find this all just a bit out of perspective?

Then there's the story of the "Nicest Canadian couple" who won a huge amount of money in the lottery, but decided it was more trouble than it was worth - so they are giving 98% of it away to charities.  Of course they are lauded as being so noble and caring.  But one article I read about it said that they had not spent *any* money on themselves - even though the wife "was undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer when the couple realized they'd won the jackpot in July."  Oh, I know what you're thinking - but that's ok, because it's Canada and their health care system pays for everything... WRONG, the taxpayers of Canada pay for everything.  The very least this couple could've done is reimburse for those chemo treatments. 

Before you shake your head and call me Scrooge, just consider if this exact same story was about Rush Limbaugh doing this - would it be reported with the same tone?  You better believe that it wouldn't.  Let's face it, we assign whether someone has 'noble intent' based more on our opinion of them than what they do.  If it's proof you want, look to the news reports that actually criticize BP for - brace yourself - continuing to make a profit in spite of the oil well disaster.  Did BP executives wake up one day and say "let's pollute the Gulf of Mexico just for fun."  Obviously not.  Have they continued to work to fix the problem and paid out on claims that continue to pile up? Yes.  And yet they are not only vilified, but there is clear disappointment among those who would like to have seen them go bankrupt - which really wouldn't have helped pay all of those claims and recovery costs.  We *expect* them to pay the bills because they have the resources to do so... just like the "nicest Canadian couple".  The difference here is that BP actually is paying their way.

But my absolute favorite "huh?" moment came last week when I read that U.S. companies are hoarding almost $1 trillion cash!  Seriously?  They are "hoarding" money?  What the article is actually saying is that companies are holding on to their profits rather than reinvesting them, because there remains a LOT of uncertainty in the economy.  Now if your parent, grandparent, friend, neighbor, or co-worker told you that they had decided to try to save back as much money as they could by reducing their expenses because they were nervous about the economy and wanted to make sure they were able to protect themselves in the event that things went sour again, would you mock them?  Of course not, you'd applaud them and admire them for having the discipline to do what so many of the rest of us can't seem to do very well... save money.  And yet, when it's 'evil' corporate America we don't applaud them for being frugal or wise in their business dealings; instead we criticize them for sitting on their money and "hoarding" it.  Personally I find that a bit bizarre - especially since we are now all massively in debt because the government has had to 'bail out' far too many companies that weren't conservative enough in their finances...

In the end, just like the election this week, the universe will continue on.  But I just can't help but think that things keep getting just a little more twisted all the time.