In politics, as in life, words matter. They mean precisely what they say, not necessarily what we mean them to say. Once they are uttered, once they enter the public domain, they cannot be unsaid. All the explanations and clarifications in the world are of no use. Words take on a life of their own.
This morning (February 15, 2012), CNN trumpted a "surge" in support for Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee. Yet the gap between them is only 2%. This is a surge?
CNN also raised the specter of "class warfare" because Santorum is the favorite by a wide margin among blue-collar voters, whereas white-collar voters prefer Romney. By the same token, gender warfare could be said to have erupted between the two camps (men for Santorum, women for Romney).
Meanwhile, Santorum himself says he is a "full-spectrum conservative". This could be interpreted as meaning that his base is wider than merely Tea Party patriors and white evangelicals. But it can also be seen as an attempt to please everyone at the risk of pleasing no one. At least he's not "severely" conservative as Romney claimed to be at CPAC.
Santorum has previously said that he "cares about 100% of America". This is patently false. He clearly does not care about pro-choice advocates, or about lesbians and gays who want their relationships to enjoy the legal status of marriage.
CNN and Santorum, how about a little truth in advertising? Let's take the rhetoric down a notch, shall we?
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Intrusive Coverage: Media Meddling in the Republican Race
As a Canadian, I had two main reactions to Rick Santorum's "trifecta" in the Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota caucuses. (Here in Canada, we'd use a well-known hockey term, and say that he scored a hat trick.) In particular, I was horrified by the media's role in giving his campaign a much-needed nudge.
Are the Media Shaping the Narrative?
CNN is my information source of choice, but I must admit I have some qualms and reservations about its methods of gathering and sharing information.
CNN is obsessed with technology, pushing buttons and resizing images in a manner eerily reminiscent of Tom Cruise in Minority Report. CNN show countless pie charts, breaking the electorate down into various different segments (including religion, which would be verboten here in Canada). CNN is also fond of exit polls as a finger-in-the-wind indicator of how events will play out.
In Canada, public opinion research firms are not above "push polling", that is, asking survey questions worded to elicit a predetermined answer. I can't help wondering whether media coverage of the Republican primaries and caucuses is similarly shaping the narrative.
We've already seen the trial by public opinion of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich for their private failings and transgressions. This media moralizing had a direct impact on their respective campaigns. Cain fizzled and faded. Gingrich went into attack-dog mode and garnered public sympathy (in some quarters, at least), which probably helped him in South Carolina.
CNN was clearly spoiling for a story last night (February 7, 2012) and kept raising the specter of an upset. When the numbers came in from Missouri and Minnesota, favouring Rick Santorum, CNN couldn't wait to post the first trickle of results from Colorado, which indicated a similar win for Santorum in that state.
Figures less than 20 translated into percentages ... It was kind of pitiful to watch, actually.
Lights, Camera, Distraction!
That brings me to my second major concern about CNN's coverage. What was with the roving reporter in Colorado -- Stillwater or Castle Rock, I can't remember which -- roaming around and butting into the proceedings in the caucus room itself? I'm pretty sure that, in Canada, he would have been unceremoniously escorted from the premises, if not told outright to take a hike and get lost.
But no, this guy blithely asked those attending the caucus how they intended to vote, and looked over the shoulders of those counting the ballots. Where I come from, that's a no-no on both scores.
Both the reporter and Wolf Blitzer waxed lyrical about how this was "democracy in action". Excuse me, but I thought the secret ballot was the rule in conducting election procedures. The privacy of the voting booth and the polling station, free of political influence -- and, I might add, media meddling -- is a right hard won over the course of history.
To violate that right of privacy is, in my view, "democracy in traction". Shame on CNN for poking its nose where it doesn't belong.
Are the Media Shaping the Narrative?
CNN is my information source of choice, but I must admit I have some qualms and reservations about its methods of gathering and sharing information.
CNN is obsessed with technology, pushing buttons and resizing images in a manner eerily reminiscent of Tom Cruise in Minority Report. CNN show countless pie charts, breaking the electorate down into various different segments (including religion, which would be verboten here in Canada). CNN is also fond of exit polls as a finger-in-the-wind indicator of how events will play out.
In Canada, public opinion research firms are not above "push polling", that is, asking survey questions worded to elicit a predetermined answer. I can't help wondering whether media coverage of the Republican primaries and caucuses is similarly shaping the narrative.
We've already seen the trial by public opinion of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich for their private failings and transgressions. This media moralizing had a direct impact on their respective campaigns. Cain fizzled and faded. Gingrich went into attack-dog mode and garnered public sympathy (in some quarters, at least), which probably helped him in South Carolina.
CNN was clearly spoiling for a story last night (February 7, 2012) and kept raising the specter of an upset. When the numbers came in from Missouri and Minnesota, favouring Rick Santorum, CNN couldn't wait to post the first trickle of results from Colorado, which indicated a similar win for Santorum in that state.
Figures less than 20 translated into percentages ... It was kind of pitiful to watch, actually.
Lights, Camera, Distraction!
That brings me to my second major concern about CNN's coverage. What was with the roving reporter in Colorado -- Stillwater or Castle Rock, I can't remember which -- roaming around and butting into the proceedings in the caucus room itself? I'm pretty sure that, in Canada, he would have been unceremoniously escorted from the premises, if not told outright to take a hike and get lost.
But no, this guy blithely asked those attending the caucus how they intended to vote, and looked over the shoulders of those counting the ballots. Where I come from, that's a no-no on both scores.
Both the reporter and Wolf Blitzer waxed lyrical about how this was "democracy in action". Excuse me, but I thought the secret ballot was the rule in conducting election procedures. The privacy of the voting booth and the polling station, free of political influence -- and, I might add, media meddling -- is a right hard won over the course of history.
To violate that right of privacy is, in my view, "democracy in traction". Shame on CNN for poking its nose where it doesn't belong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)