What Kirsten Doesn’t Get (or Acknowledge) about Media Bias for Obama

Fox News Watch today focused on questions about media bias and its influence on the campaigns for President. Host, John Scott, showed the results of a Fox News Opinion Dynamics Poll, saying that “67% of Americans think the media want Obama to win the election.”

None of the panelists—Jane Hall, Cal Thomas, Jim Pinkerton, and Kirsten Powers—disagreed. As Kirsten Powers said, “most reporters are registered Democrats, so it’s not surprising that they might be voting for the Democratic candidate.” She went on to say, though, that “at the end of the day it doesn’t matter.” Why? “Because no voter is going to go in and make a vote on election day” based on what the press is doing.

Come again? This sounds like a flat out denial of media influence on voting outcomes. John Scott seemed surprised and said you have to believe that media affection for a single candidate makes a difference. Kirsten’s response was to ask, “Then how did Bush get elected two times?”

This is another example of goofy pundit logic. Yes, George Bush was elected twice, and true, this obviously wasn’t the outcome preferred by a liberal press. But this does not mean that voters were not influenced by the media. After all, there were people who voted for Al Gore in the first election and for John Kerry in the second. How does Kirsten know that none of those people were influenced by the pro-Democrat media?

I think she does know that the media played a role. In the first election, you’ll recall, the final vote tally was close. Al Gore still thinks he won. But the margin may have been greater in favor of Bush if the media had been completely opaque about its preferences. Kirsten Powers and others like her have to know this. So their fawning over candidate Obama during his “European Vacation” may well be calculated to trim those margins a smidgen more. And a smidgen may be all it takes.

***

If you can catch him in a moment of candor, ask Barack Obama how he feels about the media coverage he’s getting. He has to like it, since garnering coverage seems to be a primary reason for his junket (supported, by the way, with taxpayer money).

Advertisements

About Doug Geivett
University Professor; PhD in philosophy; author; conference speaker. Hobbies include motorcycling, travel, kayaking, sailing.

4 Responses to What Kirsten Doesn’t Get (or Acknowledge) about Media Bias for Obama

  1. Doug Geivett says:

    Thank you, Michael. I haven’t heard from Kurt yet.

    Like

  2. Michael S. says:

    Contrary to Kurt, I don’t find this post difficult to digest or to analyze. I find your analysis of the “goofy pundit logic” (choice phrase, by the way) to be spot on.

    Like

  3. Doug Geivett says:

    Kurt, I guess you’re being hyperbolical about there being “a hundred wrong points” in my post. So let’s start with one. What do you think is the main point of my post?

    Like

  4. Kurt says:

    You can’t just throw out a hundred wrong points in one post like this. I’d be happy to debate everything you glossed over in this post, but please, one point at a time!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: