I’ve written about the media ‘cocoon’ before. It’s Mickey Kaus’ creation, and I think he nails it with this formulation.
…the pro-Democratic wishful-thinking approach that caused so many Southland readers to be bracingly surprised at the result of the recent California recall election. … The point isn’t that there are no voters who have soured on Bush, or that souring on Bush isn’t a real phenomenon. The point is that reporters and editors at papers like the Times (either one!) are exquisitely sensitive to any sign that Democrats might win, but don’t cultivate equivalent sensitivity when it comes to discerning signs Republicans might win. (Who wants to read that?) The result, in recent years, is the Liberal Cocoon, in which Democratic partisans are kept happy and hopeful until they are slaughtered every other November.
I believe that the media monoculture – which a journalist acquaintance described as “establishment first, then liberal” – is to all appearances shilling wildly for a Kerry victory and the Democratic Party. That tilt is, sadly, one of the major barriers to the success of the Democratic Party.Last week, the party line on the Australian elections was that the (relatively conservative) Liberal party might barely hold on to the Prime Minister’s seat while losing seats in the Parlaiment. See this prediction from the ABC’s (Australian Broadcasting Company’s) pollster:
Prime Minister Mr John Howard will lose seats, win the election narrowly and announce his retirement at the first sign of economic downturn.
Opposition leader Mr Mark Latham will rise in popularity and lead Labor to victory in three years.
Those are the predictions of ABC election analyst Mr Antony Green, who gave his only public speech yesterday ahead of the October 9 federal poll.
“My prediction would be that the Government will get back with a loss of a couple of seats,” Mr Green told a lunch held by industry group Australian Business Economists.
In fact, here’s what happened:
As Howard went to church Sunday in Sydney, counters resumed tallying votes for the 150-seat lower house of Parliament that gave his Liberal Party 71 seats, up from 68, the government’s junior coalition partner the Nationals 12, down from 13, the opposition Labor Party 56, down from 65 and four seats to minor parties.
Many on the right here in the U.S. see this as a good omen for Bush’s re-election chances, and I am somewhat in agreement.
I am more certain that Kerry and the Democratic Party would be better served by a media that gives them (and us) a clearer view of what is really going on.
One reason I believe that Bush is going to win (not the same as stating that I want him to – or not) is that the ‘feel’ of the media coverage of this election reads much like the pro-establishment coverage of the recall election here in California. It was going to be a close victory for Gov. Davis.
It wasn’t.
The results were 55% – 45%.
Let’s keep those numbers in mind, come November.
The difference between this election and the recall is that in the recall, all the polls except the much criticized LA Times poll showed Davis losing badly, while the polls now show pretty much a tie.
Good argument except for two things. The Australian election was decided on economics. Also, noone thought that Davis would win, media coverage or not (and I don’t know what media you were reading that led you to that erroneous conclusion). There was a faint hope that Bustamante might be able to overcome the Arnold juggernaut. Davis should have resigned to avoid the recall, but he was too stubborn.
More than that, the polls recently seem to be suggesting a Kerry lead (though not the preiction markets, but I’m not sure which we should put greater weight on).
I found myself agreeing with A.L. on this as recently as three weeks ago, but now I’m not so sure. Bush’s poor debate performances seem to be tipping the balance in Kerry’s direction. I wish it weren’t so, but I think Bush may have actually screwed this one up.
Bush will need all the good Omen’s he can muster, because his approval is heading south while Kerry’s has now crossed Bush’s on the way up.
Unless Australian citizens can now vote in the US election or vote for Howard, I don’t see any reason to argue that this outcome is a positive one for Bush. Australia is not bearing the brunt of the cost in Iraq, we are, and American’s know that. All the threads in Bush’s argument for the war are in tatters, and will continue to fray until election day.
“One reason I believe that Bush is going to win (not the same as stating that I want him to – or not) is that the ‘feel’ of the media coverage of this election reads much like the pro-establishment coverage of the recall election here in California. It was going to be a close victory for Gov. Davis.”
This must rank as one of the craziest reasons I’ve heard yet to propogate the meme that a Bush victory is inevitable. The media never predict the outcome accurately; they live in a bubble world.
I think a Kerry landslide victory is becoming more and more likely at this point if the recent post-debate trends continue in the same directions (up for Kerry, down for President Hothead). The media’s role in this will be as spectators, not agents, thankfully.
I read an essay by Bill Whittle, as I know Joe has, and it occurred to me…Who would our enemies vote for? Kerry has no deterence at all, Bush knows what we face. It’s like a light bulb turned on, it becomes a one issue election. Will we be around to enjoy anything if Kerry wins? There is no question that we will be attacked again if we can not deter our enemy. So who wins in the end? Only those ready and willing to kill us win. Luckily for me I am already on the ground, fighting this battle for liberty, but so many Americans just want to live in peace. I say we let them.
Rik
VT,
You know that I’ll be reminding you about that Kerry landslide comment for… oh, probably forever.
It’s nice outside the cocoon, really it is – come visit sometime.
As for why this election might be good news for Bush, how about the concept that he now has a firm ally who will help fight the war, instead of a defeatist, appeasing socialist administration in Australia? Everything does not reduce to domestic politics, surprising though this may seem to the America’s monomaiacal Bush-haters.
The polls go up and the polls go down, yet there’s only one that really counts. Triumphalism is unwarranted at this point, be either side.
I don’t see the down side to favourable media coverage, if there is one, as serious.
Lacking information is bad, but Tim Blair is making the point that the Labor Party insiders didn’t lack information. They knew there was danger, it’s just that their media mates either didn’t or did but reported as though the contrary is true.
Institutionalised favourable media is not a cocoon, it’s a propaganda/spin machine, and a strong propaganda machine is an advantage.
People have gotten way too fond of paradox. It’s better to stick to common sense.
Joe;
I’m sure Howard will be more than happy to work with Kerry.
Rik;
Some terrorists have already stated clearly that they “support Bush’s re-election”:http://www.chatarea.com/backpackers.m2562066. Is there comparable evidence to support your speculation??
“I’m sure Howard will be more than happy to work with Kerry.”
That’s not the point. Kerry’s sister went to Australia, as an official rep of the Kerry campaign, to persuade them to vote out Howard. Kerry complains we have no allies or foreign troops “sharing the burden,” then not only ignores the ones we do have but tries to get them to leave. This is not only bad politics, it doesn’t even make any sense. I mean, it is literally incoherent. And it is also unstatesmanlike.
The Australians know it too, and they know what Kerry’s positions are. Of course Howard will work with whoever wins the US election. The question is: would Latham have worked with Bush? The answer is no, and his election would have been trumpeted by Kerry as another Iraq ally leaving, and justification for kerry’s foreign policy.
Arafat wants Kerry to win.
Kim Jong Il wants Kerry to win.
The Iranian mullahs have been going back and forth, but at one point they said they wanted Kerry to win.
France wants Kerry to win.
Wow, a couple of the commentators above have proved AL’s point about a cocoon.
A Kerry landslide? Please. If Kerry somehow wins it will be by the skin of his teeth electorally. Almost all the Bush states from 2000are safe for him now, plus his states have picked up electoral votes at the expense of Kerry’s.
The exceptions are only NH, OH, and FL.
But even in the polls after the first debate Bush was running ahead safely in FL, and at worst tied in OH.
Not to mention Bush is still leading in Wisconsin, a Gore state from 2000, and running even in a number of other midwest Gore states like Iowa.
A landslide please.
AS for the commentator who thought Bush lost both debates badly. Jeez, I guess you were watching baseball and then got your news from Kos or something. Bush at worst tied Kerry, and probably beat him, perhaps even substantially. Kerry looked like a zombie by the end, meanwhile Bush was crowd surfing.
As for the polls being bad for Bush. Dude, read realclearpolitics sometime. Rasmussen has Bush up by as much as he’s ever been up this campaign. Another new poll today has him up 4, and the WashP/ABC tracker has him up 5. And these polls were done partly over the weekend, when repubs polls lower.
If anyone wins in a landslide, its Bush.
A.L.’s point that the Democrats are more vulnerable to surprise as a result of their “cocoon” is a valid one. So is David Blue’s note that despite these disadvantages, a strong propaganda machine is still a net advantage (I’d trade every conservative media outlet for every liberal media outlet in a second, if such an offer was possible).
In these times, the added element of general danger and the fact that national defense has become a partisan divide adds urgency to this problem.
Which is why the media-related rumbles we’ve seen in the 2004 election are the leading edge indicators of a serious effort that will begin to target these imbalances and make them a bigger and bigger issue. The current lopsided ratio of Democrat to Republican leanings in the newsrooms of America is no longer sustainable. Belmont Club called this one a while ago, and most developments since seem to confirm his view.
RE: the U.S. elections… My fearless prediction: no landslides in the 2004 U.S. election.
Believing in one, no matter which direction it’s supposed to go in, makes me wonder about the believer.
But as Lurker says, there’s only one poll that counts. And outside events between now and the U.S. election can also play a role. So we’ll see.
“I believe that the media monoculture – is to all appearances shilling wildly for a Kerry victory and the Democratic Party.”
Well how do you feel about what these stories have to say about the Right Wing shills in the media?
1) Carl Cameron, Fox’s chief political correspondent, “fabricating stories”:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/politics/campaign/03fox.html?ex=1097640000&en=240cd6421110d7ae&ei=5070 about John Kerry. Before that, he bragged about his wife’s involvement with the “2000 Bush campaign.”:http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=9343
2) Sinclair Broadcastings plans to force local cable stations to pre-empt prime-time shows to air an “anti-kerry propoganda film”:http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/10/that-liberal-media.html days before the election.
Joe, A.L,
As VT has pointed out, to talk about a media monoculture, when you see what “Sinclair Broadcasting Group”:http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-sinclair9oct09,1,4817545.story?coll=la-home-headlines is attempting to do, is to simply – and purposely – blinding yourself to the reality of the situation.
Sinclair was also the group that wouldn’t allow the running of that Nightline segment, that was a tribute to the soldiers in Iraq.
Sumner Redstone himself, has mentioned that personally while he has a lot of democratic sympathies, that Bush is good for his COMPANY. (Huge media conglomerates, basically.)
Look at Clear Channel Communications. Another media owner/group pulling for Bush.
As such, without consideration of ownership, editors, and the like, your insights on media bias are fatally flawed, making them completely invalid.
Also A.L., the particular comparison is invalid. I was pretty certain that Schwarznegger would win, as were most of the people I knew. The polls showed that.
Right now the polls show Bush either tied or slightly ahead.
So I can’t see the cocoon you are speaking of.
I can’t speak for A.L. here, and wouldn’t use the term “media monoculture” without adding the prefix “mainstream”.
It’s nice to have FOX and Sinclair bucking the trend, but when you compare the infuence of cable boardcasters to, say, CBS in terms of reach and readership, it isn’t even close. Then one has the New York Times, L.A. Times, et. al. (which act as feeds to local publications on national/international affairs), and newsfeed services like Reuters (which could only get worse by declareing itself openly to be in sympathy with al-Qaeda) or AP (whose malfesance in this campaign has been commented on a few times).
Throw in consistent Pew surveys et. al., affairs like the recent California election in which the media role was blindingly obvious, recent notes by mediawatch organizations like Poynter that their reports from the last year aremore like a journalistic rap sheet than a chronicle of positive developments, and a growing literature on media bias and the hugely skewed (and unrepresentative) political demographics of reporters… and it’s clear that citing a couple cable and radio services doesn’t even begin to address this.
Hence my comment that I’d trade every liberal media outlet for every conservative outlet in a New York minute. I wouldn’t even have to think about it.
Reform will come one of 2 ways. From within, as MSM outlets are increasingly stung by outside attacks and seek to get back in tune with their audiences. Or via fragmentation into openly partisan outlets throughout, followed by internal shifts that reflect each station’s chosen positioning and changing fortunes. Either way, there are changes coming in the media’s skew.
Finally, on a business level, I see BOTH parties equally at the beck and call of the media/entertainment complex – often to the public detriment. If there’s a party-based difference in America, I can’t see it.
Joe;
NY and LA Times are read largely by liberals in Blue states. Sinclair broadcasts in many hotly contested swing states.
I seem to recall you complaining months ago about Farenheit 9/11, stating you thought it was improper for Michael Moore to purposefully try to influence the presidential elections in such a biased manner. But of course, no one was forced to watch this movie, if you wanted to you paid to go see it in theaters.
Not so for Sinclair. They’re using the public’s airwaves to broadcast their partisan message. In primetime. Days before the election. I can’t see how you can justify your position against Moore but not be bothered by Sinclair, regardless of the size of the viewership.
“IOKIYAR”:http://corrente.blogspot.com/2004_01_04_corrente_archive.html#107357770709035914, I guess?
“…but when you compare the infuence of cable boardcasters to, say, CBS in terms of reach and readership, it isn’t even close.”
How do you know this?
Yehudit –
After Diana Kerry’s comment, I posted to the Americans Overseas for Kerry (AOK) website, saying that I regarded her statement as a crude threat against Australians. I said I intended to contact leading Democratic senators and ask them to speak to Senator Kerry about this.
My post was promptly deleted, and the AOK director sent me a really nasty little email:
I responded briefly:
But that wasn’t the end of it – I was pleasantly surprised to get this email last week:
As for the liberal bias of the mainstream media, you can have them. Print reporters are of course disproportionately liberal than the population at large, but they are not emotionally invested partisans, and it tends to be a wishy-washy, feather-weight liberalism which cracks at the first sharp gust of wind. Broadcast is a different ballgame. There people today tend to be kiss-ass careerists, a mindset which lends itself more easily to conservatism than liberalism. CBS, due to the faint lingering legacy of Edward Murrow (which will die when Dan Rather leaves), is an exception, but even there they now fold like cheap accordians when challenged by the suits in any way. For us partisan liberals, there are a handful of mainstream guys that really care about winning, and really represent their constituency (Krugman, Herbert, the old Kinsley, a couple others). Everyone else in mainstream “liberal” journalism I would generally characterize as “Mush from the Wimps”.
As for Bush winning, I think he might, but it will have nothing to do with the “media cocoon”. There has been one praiseworthy and impressive accomplishment of the Bush administration: apart from 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil. Of course, the obvious counter is that apart from Oklahoma City and the first WTC bombing, there were no terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration on American soil. Nevertheless, it is a very real accomplishment which I think people will have in mind on election day. On economic isssues, I think most people are not very satisfied with the status quo, but they are more fearful of things getting worse than they are hopeful of things improving. The sentiment of “Don’t rock the boat” might win out over the desire for improvement.
The irony is that change is coming whether Bush or Kerry gets in. The economic situation as it is, with massive federal borrowing, rising debt levels, an aging population with increased health and retirement costs, lots of liquidity fueling an asset bubble of uncertain dimension, an energy crunch, and a corporate upper management that is accountable to no one and is able to consume an astonishingly large and growing portion of the pie, is not sustainable. The choice is between somebody who will work -er- “proactively” (hate that word!) to try and fix the problems, or someone who will float in LaLa land until the shit hits the fan.
Apologies for length, I’ll just say I thought Kerry has done a fantastic job in the part of debates I saw (missed the first 30-45 minutes of the second debate). Without those good performances he might have been toast.
Rik asks, “Who would our enemies vote for?”
My students (managers in a company) here in China are hoping Bush will will.
They figure if Bush wins he’s going to stay busy with Iraq and if China makes a grab for Taiwan there will be less of an opposing force to deal with.
Dave