Two immediate thoughts - remember that the media constantly describe Joe Manchin as moderate, so a "moderate voter" in a focus group is likely right of center. And the despicable Frank Luntz uses focus groups for political branding. He's the guy who coined "illegal immigrant," and "death tax" to help Republicans spread their bile. When the despicable Eric Cantor lost a primary to a Tea Party nutcase, Luntz spent 5 minutes on CBS' morning show claiming the election result was AWFUL for America without bothering to disclose that he had been working for Cantor. Starting with Newt's contract on America, Luntz has been poisoning the national discourse for years, which is why it was laughable over the past couple of years when he would go on TV and feign an inability to understand how Trump made it to the White House.
I have friends who were shocked when I told them who Luntz really is or the role he has played in manipulating the public’s impression of right wing policies. They were talking about how they didn’t understand how we got here. I gave the example of how he came up with the term privatization because Republicans knew the public hated the idea of turning Medicare over to insurance companies. Focus groups found the term “privatization” much less alarming. Of course Democrats should have countered with calling it “profitization” to make it clear what Republicans were trying to do. And this isn’t happening just in the US. Boris Johnson and the plutocratic Tories have been trying to do the same to the NHS. He is also trying to eliminate the fee people pay to the BBC.
Most people don’t pay close enough attention to the behind the scenes of politics to understand just how we have been manipulated by the right. In fact most people I know who do pay pretty close attention have no clue how long this has been going on. As I posted above there Kurt Andersen’s recent book “Evil Geniuses” documents this decades long effort, dating it back to the 70s.
I think in that case, they had some kind of personal grudge that played out in the press. Some kind of New York thing, I think. But they definitely abused their position to create that trend, and have continued the tradition ever since.
I believe that Luntz also created the term “privatization”. What has really infuriated me is that after Republicans come up with anodyne labels for their toxic agenda the media often adopts them.
I recently listened to talk by Kurt Andersen about his book “Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America”.
Andersen describes how the petroleum industry decided to sell their climate denial “science”. One of their tactics was to come up with the term “climate change”. Sure enough the media has adopted it despite the fact that the more accurate term is global warming.
Andersen’s book is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the decades long project of billionaires and right wing ideologues to take control of our democracy. This concerted, well-funded effort began back in the 70s.The media has ignored their well-orchestrated, democracy-destroying machinations.
Yes it did begin in the 70s. The Right has been playing the long game and their patience has more than paid off. If you've never heard of the Powell Memo or read it a while ago, it's worth looking at again. It's a diabolically brilliant blueprint that the Right has followed to greater success than they ever imagined.
Anderson pinpoints the start of this plutocrat propaganda operation with the Powell Memo and with Milton Friedman’s declaration that corporations have no obligation to any group — not even employees or customers — other than making profits for shareholders.
Most people don’t understand the incredible power having an explicit set of beliefs has if you want to radically shift the Overton Window, i.e. what people accept as normal and acceptable. Democrats need to be able to articulate a competing vision and hammer it home.
Personally I think that vision should center on doing whatever is necessary to build and keep a healthy democracy — things like an informed citizenry, a thriving middle class with low levels of poverty which requires a healthy economy that benefits all, good education for all, a decent standard of living and above all STRONG VOTING PROTECTIONS!! The policies Democrats are trying to implement all serve the strengthening of our democracy. Their informal slogan should be “It’s our democracy stupid!”
Well, the problem right there is an informed citizenry. The occasional segments on late night showing just how stupid people are don't make me laugh; they make me want to weep. It's not just those who don't go to college; I see it in comments by "educated" liberals who have no understanding of how the government actually works. I hear it when knocking doors and making phone calls during campaigns. "Oh, there's an election coming up?"
Not to mention getting Dem voters to consider voting a civic duty that must be undertaken no matter what—and come out strong for every election, not just when it's time to choose a president. I'm so tired of the "I need to be excited by a candidate" bullshit or "I, didn't get X so I'm staying home."
If these voters haven't learned from four years of Trump and from losing Roe, I don't know what will get through to them.
But I like the "it's our democracy stupid!" Though frankly, this is an issue they shouldn't even have to keep repeating. If you live in any of the 7 states where they have consistently tried to undermine the vote or watched any of what happened on 1/6, you should be steaming mad and itching to get to the polls.
Voters in this country, including a number on the left, have much to answer for.
If you try to point out how Democrats in Florida who voted for Nader or just stayed home put Bush in office you get nasty denials but it really is true. People should be encouraged to think about how much better off we would be had Gore been elected and Carter re-elected. By now we would have done so much more to combat global warming. Both of them also were dedicated to making our government more effective and efficient.
As for messaging I think Democratic leaders take if for granted that people know what they are proposing will strengthen democracy but most people need to hear that repeatedly said and explained. Most people don’t realize that a hallmark of all strong democracies is a large, thriving middle class. We had a decent democracy (at least for white people) back in the 50s and 60s when government policies helped grow the middle class and there were far fewer uber wealthy people. The more we have increased the number of extremely wealthy people the weaker our democracy has become.
And by extension, if people really knew just how awful Republicans are at governing, how wasteful, inefficient and inept they are, this is something that should also be reiterated over and over, until it’s the go-to thought process for people in the general public. I’m all for taking the high road, but sometimes the truth just has to be told, no matter how harsh it may seem.
And herein lies the problem. How do you educate a citizenry inundated with propaganda from the right, and aided by rightwing media and supposedly neutral media?
Forget the right wing media, as Steve Bannon has said it’s the mainstream media that does the real damage to Democrats. He said he used Breitbart to keep the base energized but always work to get things like the Clinton Foundation and Biden/Ukraine slanders into outlets like the NY Times and WaPo. Both of those smears came from books written by Bannon’s partner Peter Schweitzer.
Most of the public still gets their news from the mainstream media, particularly the NY Times, WaPo and network news which drives the rest of the MSM coverage. For years we have seen how their coverage drives perception among Democrats and independents.Just look at what they did to Gore.
It’s not that I don’t think right wing media is a serious threat to our democracy but if the MSM stopped trashing Biden and the Democrats and started making it clear just what they have accomplished it would make it much harder for Republicans to increase their power. It was just reported that our economy grew at almost 7% last quarter, far greater than predicted. but I bet we will hear much more about inflation, rising interest rates and stock market decline than we will about our high growth rate, the impressive number of new companies being formed or our very strong jobs growth. Republicans’ chance of regaining power is greatly increased as a direct result of that kind of unbalanced reporting.
The "shareholder revolution"—hand in hand with "trickle down economics" really screwed us, as did the demise of pensions and the rise of 401Ks in the 80s. (And then there's health care, big banks, big Agra, and big Pharma.) The 80s are a real gold mine for historians. Everything that's wrong with this country now kicked into gear on 11/4/80.
A hilarious side note: Carter won Georgia and West Virginia in that election.
Yes, the media happily amplifies the nonsense, and more often than not, the hypocrisy that abounds. No finer example than allowing anti-abortion zealots to be labeled "pro-life."
I didn't know that. I assumed "climate change" was coined in order to make people understand that the changes they see in weather patterns resulting from global warming are not necessarily higher temperatures (but the overall rise in planetary temp is very real). It was a way to dumb it down. For example, we've been having record low temperatures where I liv, so of course the Donald Trumps will say, "Global warming is a hoax! Look how cold it is!"
We've called it "Global Warming" since the early '70s, when the term was first coined, and I would know as I did my freshman science fair project on it 50 years ago. It was Luntz who got Bush the Shrub to use the more seemingly innocuous "Climate Change" because the real term was "too scary." Luntz is a Duntz.
Which is why the “moderate voter” and “Independent voter” labels they place on these people to legitimize this hit job should be taken with a grain of salt. Seriously, the media should come with a disclaimer in situations like this, like they force lawyers and doctors and pharmaceutical companies to do before they are allowed to advertise. Media shows should be forced to do the same. So people know it’s just an infomercial to market conservatives.
This is off topic but relevant to the media's handling of polls, and I need to vent. I was incensed earlier this week to hear an NPR reporter cite a poll of Russians' attitudes about Putin's buildup to invading Ukraine. The reporter said 60% of Russians support what Putin is doing. Never mentioned who conducted the poll, including how many people responded. Or the fact that Russians neither have freedom of speech or a free press and face reprisals for speaking out against the government.
For good measure the reporter threw in a comment that Biden is "struggling" to deal with the Ukranian issue, the pandemic, inflation, and so on. Am I "struggling" when I'm trying to fix a leaky faucet or merely working to fix it? All of this, including using focus groups to gauge voter sentiment, is embarrassing and pathetic. As Gore Vidal once said: "At any given moment, public opinion is a chaos of superstition, misinformation, and prejudice."
That's the press for you - Biden is always "struggling" or "scrambling," as though he is incompetent. I think it smacks of ageism and political bias. The writers at WaPo do this daily.
That's because it's as entrenched as sexism. People make assumptions about older folks and it is prejudice in its purest form - when the assumptions are accepted as true without a second thought. Dr. Fauci is probably the most amazing scientific mind since Stephen Hawking, but if you'll check out the editorial by Kathleen Parker published in WaPo yesterday, you'll see how it reeks with ageism. She called for him to step down, and for the silliest of reasons. Readers ate her alive, which was heartening. And there was also sexism - a reader comment referred to her as a bimbo.
I don't see the ageism in Parker's column that you do. I do see suspect logic. For example, I very much doubt Fauci is worn down by all of his on-camera appearances. It's more like a crushing workload and living under the stress of threats on his life and that of his family. And in Parker's reasoning the legions of people who embrace lies, undermining public health, need someone in Fauci's role they can trust, someone who would make them "feel better."
BTW, I crossed paths with Parker while we worked at another newspaper years ago. She's no spring chicken — 71 like me.
You're entitled to your opinion, and being 71 doesn't mean you can spot ageism every time. I'm 64 and it jumped right out at me. I doubt Parker gives a dead rat's ass about Fauci's well being.
You're a little harsh given I'm simply expressing an opinion different than yours. We agree the column missed the mark. I don't claim to be an expert on ageism. And I mentioned my age because it's the same as Parker. I have experienced ageism, as early as my 50s.
You reminded me that Luntz (along with Newt) was the author of the despicable vocabulary training at GOPAC in the '90s that propelled the GOP’s use of framing the Left as “others” - the list is here: https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html
Does the press care of the focus group is insightful or does it only care that it can make those who are not paying close attention think it is insightful? I vote for the latter. When I read (or tried to plow thru) the NYT article, all I could think was that "these people are not independents, these people are Republicans who know the brand is toxic so choose to call themselves independent." and the presence of the odious Frank Luntz was the dead giveaway. Face it folks, we have entered the era of normalizing the insurrection, bashing Biden, and preparing for the triumphal return of Republicans to their proper place running the country (into the ground). It is so much easier for the elite access stenographers of the Beltway Press Corp to repeat GOP talking points than to do their jobs properly. After all, that is what made most of them rich.
I think it is worse than the press just trying to make people think these groups will give them insight into how Americans are thinking. God know why but press has to be deliberately trying to convince people that Biden is a total failure. They know recent polls (Pew for example) show 75% of Democrats supporting Biden’s performance and a majority of swing voters who lean Dem also still support him.
Biden is boring. While the stories of his successes would write themselves if the press would try, there is a preference for the constant drama and clickbait that Republicans provide. Also, access to Republicans gets them invites to better parties.
I think that the elite Beltway media is a bunch of generally lazy, entitled folk who grew comfortable with the chaos of the Trump years when it was easy to write about the chaos without writing about the substance or the implications. There are exceptions to that for sure, but sadly not enough of them.
It's not a plot, but it's the result of herd mentality combined with the Beltway's dislike of Biden and reporters' highly selective "our job is to challenge those in power." With the exception of RW outlets, political journalists would never admit that they have a bias or that they want bring Biden down.
There is a lot of evidence that the mainstream DC political press is a tight knit, incestuous social group which fosters group think and a desire to fit in with the cool crowd. Nowadays Republicans are no longer part of that group but the others are. It is how they make contacts that help them further their careers.
During one Gore Bradley debate the press were in a separate room. They literally booed and hissed at Gore. Don’t take my work for it, this is how Jake Tapper described their horrifying behavior:
“Well, I can tell you that the only media bias I have detected in terms of a group media bias was, at the first debate between Bill Bradley and Al Gore, there was hissing for Gore in the media room up at Dartmouth College. The reporters were hissing Gore, and that’s the only time I’ve ever heard the press room boo or hiss any candidate of any party at any event.”
When I reread the Post one thing stood out — Howard Kurtz used to be an aggressive critic of the media. He has done a 180 since he decided to go to Fox.
The most visible Republican office holders may no longer be welcome at the kool kidz table, but the movers and shakers of the DC Republican political establishment certainly are, and it is access to them that the DC political press wants access to.
As always, it's about creating controversies where they don't exist, attracting viewers and scoring those high ratings. I personally have no interest in TV news shows, and no interest in what other voters think of Joe Biden. But knowing how people so easily influence each other, these phony focus groups bother the hell out of me. They're not news, they are phony "infotainment" and do not enlighten or educate viewers. But this is what passes for political journalism today. No wonder Trump's mostly silent. With the press piling on Biden, Trump can go play golf and trust that his reelection campaign is running itself.
and i think the press truly loves focus groups bc, after pounding Biden for months, they can turn around and say, 'see voters agree!' and pretend voters aren't just repeating what press has said
It’s a vicious cycle that fills me with rage. As a journalist, I am still trying to wrap my head around the complete lack of standards and ethical responsibility.
Exactly! Saw the first one discussed on Twitter a few months ago and the media folk were rapturous because they had another doom and gloom storyline to pursue and flog.
Me too. It isn’t relevant in the grand scheme of things, but it bugs the hell out of me, mainly because news sources should freaking know better. This sort of thing is better left to Breibart and OANN and Newsmax. For it to be in what people are supposed to trust to be a reliable news source is despicable. As a journalist, this kind of thing keeps me up at night.
What has bothered me for decades is that the news media takes advantage of the vulnerabilities of their audiences, that people trust them to tell the truth and also that people are likely to believe something is true if others believe it. Journalists are like doctors in that they possess knowledge the rest of us don't, and we depend on them as individuals and as a profession to be honest with us. I've been reading Eric's blog for a long time because I finally found someone who makes me feel my perceptions aren't crazy.
Yep. There should be accountability. The 1st Amendment should not be an unfettered right to lie and propagate, especially when those lies and propaganda put the general population in danger. There should be specific standards they have to meet or a disclaimer on their stories when they don’t meet those standards. It should be clear to their audience whether or not they are presenting facts and unbiased reporting. I still maintain The Fairness Doctrine is the easiest solution.
Call me a bitchy old woman, but I find it hard to adjust to a reality where there is a loss of integrity in politics and in the news media we get our news from. Holy shit, the amount of lying going on in reporting on covid, vaccines and everything related is phenomenal - and the lack of integrity in those who allow themselves to be platforms for it. Not only Spotify and Joe Rogan, but Substack and Alex Berenson. I unsubscribed in protest and I wish everyone else would follow suit, until Substack stops acting as a megaphone for this asshole.
The obsession around these "moderate" undecided voters stems in my opinion from the idea the media has that it has found the hack for election analysis. The Presidential election boils down to a group of swing states and in those swing states there are a group of swing voters. Thus all other voices can be ignored since they have found the magic key to the election. I really wish they would spend more time interrogating the notion of democracy rather than accepting GOP agitprop that the Electoral College is "What The Founders Intended" and therefore cannot be questioned. It seem likely that any GOP candidate but especially Trump, would likely only be able to win a bare EC victory and a substantial popular vote defeat. Yet rarely is the notion of minority rule questioned in terms of what it means for the majority of citizens.
I would bet their “swing voters” were actually people who lean Republican. In fact I bet there were no strong Democrats in that group given that the recent Pew Poll shows 75% of Democrats still support the job Biden has been doing.
def. seems to me a lot of these "independent" voters were folks who voted for Trump 2016, decided yeah, he's kind of insane, and then two months into Biden just went back to their GOP roots
And those were the people we desperately need to keep. They are mostly suburban college educated voters. Because many of those voters were rattled by the media obsession over defunding the police and socialism they split their tickets and voted for Republicans down ballot which is why Congressional Democrats didn’t do nearly as well as had been predicted.
I think the entire concept of “independent voter” is a fallacy the media created to make this kind of reporting more palatable. The “independents” they get always lean right. Always. I have never met or seen on a news segment someone claiming to be an “independent” who didn’t spout rightwing talking points to justify their position. I think they would vote for the next batshit crazy authoritarian in a heartbeat.
"Independents" is a term used when they want to appear unbiased. I have never met an "independent" who wasn't actually a Republican but who refuses to identify themselves as such.
Ali Velshi, weekends msnbc, has interviewed several small groups of citizens from all over the country w/varied political stances and interesting views about topics eg immigration, voter suppression, over the past couple of years. I found each group interview informative and no ringers were included to skew views one way or another. Eric’s point about Luntz’s focus groups being conducted among low information swing voters is an essential fact to include while explaining the ‘conclusions?’ drawn from these non representative focus groups. And the public buys these conclusions and interpret them as facts. Of course, that’s the BIG problem. More disappointments from msm.
Frank Luntz has pulled the strings behind the scenes for years. A few months ago, I listened to an interview between Luntz and Andy Slavitt where Luntz was bemoaning the rampant misinformation about Covid and vaccinations, and urging 'compassion and love' to counter the divisions. This tripe from a man who spent his life undermining democracy by promoting unfettered capitalism and raw power grabs through deceptive branding and misinformation. Almost a million deaths later, and nothing has changed...he's back to undermining democracy. With few exceptions, the media are 1) failing to explain the reality of daily life under authoritarian regimes, 2) failing to explain the phenomenon of worldwide inflation, 3) failing to explain why Russia's actions are imperiling the post WWII world order (and why Trump's pandering to Putin opened the door to this perilous moment), and 4) the destruction that will be wrought by a GOP majority Congress in 2023 (endless vengeance, chaos, further crippling if the rule of law, further rollback of regulations protecting air/water/food/worker's rights.
Carville is a political strategist, yes he understands communications, but he doesn't do linguisitics; he's a nitty gritty politics guy. No one the left does what Luntz does, and he has been a success because the media picks up and amplifies his aka GOP talking points. Luntz knows his twisted shorthand isn't just for the voters; it's to manipulate the people who get the message to the voters: the reporters.
OK - let me get this straight… D’s ‘mill around’ for 30+ years while rw radio builds and evolves… Luntz & co refine/perfect marketing and evasive language to course through the media (on all levels) - Fox News hardens metastasizes - and when I turn on the D ‘answer’ to all of this - MSNBC- the first mug I see is… Joe Scarborough’s. 😐
The Powell Memo was not well known for many years, so it's not like Democrats were sitting around going "oh well." Some on our side did try to get a foothold with Air America but they couldn't get enough listeners and folded. What sells is anger, hate, and lies—from crackpots like Art Bell to the truly venomous like Rush. When Regan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine and Congress lifted the limits on media conglomeration the juggernaut was born.
See, MSNBC IS NOT the D's "answer." The block from 4-12 definitely more so, but daytime, with an exception here and there, not at all.
For whatever reason, the best and brightest liberals are more interested in doing other things than politics.
Thanks for the add’l info… it was also disheartening to see some of Obama’s ‘brightest’ exit DC as soon as they reasonably could - maybe DC is just not for the well-intentioned/idealistic. At ALL. It’s easy to over simplify - there are an awful lot of dynamics at play.
Yes. And if you watch any of the Andersen clips (he did a lot of press when the book came out) please keep in mind when he's criticizing the Dems, that in the early 90s, the GOP was so ascendent and riding the Reagan high that to stave off extinction, Dems needed to switch tacks to win elections—which is why we got "welfare as we know it is dead" etc. I screamed about it at the time, but understood why it was happening.
If Clinton and the Dems hadn't won, it's guaranteed SS, Medicare, etc would have been cut, privatized, and/or means tested. We'd be in even worse shape than we are.
3 reasons that I see: 1) Democrats don't have the same endless pools of dark money funding local and state infrastructure, 2) Democratic leadership refuses to use its own bully pulpit to call for (loudly and often) and to elevate grassroots efforts to counter the coordinate GOP attack on democracy, 3) senior Democratic leadership (because of narrow self-interest) refuses to unite behind a broad anti-corruption message that enjoys unparalleled support across the country.
Eric, first I wanted to thank you for being the lone voice of sanity on Biden's press coverage. Having dedicated 2019-2020 to his campaign as a volunteer & this past year hoping to help unwind Jan 6 via a sedition hunters groups, it is beyond me why MSM is pushing such dangerous & misleading rhetoric.
I was wondering if you have any suggestions re: what we can do as media consumers to fight this trend ? I currently subscribe to a number of National publications -- what is the best way to vocalize how dangerous I feel this all is and be heard. Any thoughts ?
Clearly these groups were deliberately skewed to hype the dishonest storyline that Biden is failing. Poll numbers tell a different tale. Biden’s performance is approved by 75% of Democrats and by a majority of those who lean Democratic.
The media is deliberately framing that story as “Biden’s approval ratings among Dems has tanked ” — it is true his numbers are down 20 points but that is deeply misleading because they have dropped from an unusually high 95% approval among Dems.
These focus groups are blatantly biased. If they had been chosen by objective standards intended to give viewers real insight into how Americans are thinking then 3/4 of the Democrats would have had positive things to say about Biden.
Our media has allowed itself to become an arm of the right wing propaganda machine. The fact that they would use the odious right wing spinner Frank Luntz is proof. He used to do this regularly for NBC with little criticism. Those same networks would never choose someone like James Carville to do the questioning.
That the New York Times hired Frank Luntz to do anything other than mop floors is a testament to how low the Old Gray Lady has stooped to perpetuate her own lazy and false narratives about Biden.
Luntz was, after all, the guy who organized the non-governing obstruction policy of the GOP on the evening of January 20, 2009 at The Caucus Room steakhouse where they all agreed that the best way to deal with Obama/Biden was to oppose and try to tank everything they proposed, even if they agreed with it, or caused the very messes Obama/Biden inherited, their oaths office be damned.
"Looking for additional ways to pile on President Joe Biden...". Sorry to say, made me laugh.
Anyway.
As Eric made clear but could have made a bit clearer, focus groups are insanely manipulatable. As a rule there is no justification for reporting on one, even less than that for a hard news operation to run one. Too, not like there aren't better, more important things to report were our awesome, exceptional mainstream interested in doing: Accurate reporting on the Biden economy, maybe fact-based reporting on Ukraine instead of just reporting what the Blob wants reported (too little of which is true). But we get focused groups.
Professionals who really want to get a realistic picture of how people are thinking go out of their way to avoid any manipulation. When I lived in Texas I participated in several focus groups for new products. (Not only did we get paid we got to try out some great products — one was either for Dove Bars or Eskimo bars, another was for champagne. There was another for a tortilla chip with cheese on one side that everyone hated. That product never say the light of day.)
At the time I was in grad school studying child cognitive development. I was taking courses about how to do research with heavy emphasis on how to avoid introducing bias so I paid close attention to how these groups were being conducted. The people conducting the group asked completely neutral questions that gave no clue what product we were testing.
Clearly Frank Luntz is a professional — a professional propagandists who not only doesn’t care about being objective, but is using professional techniques to deliberately manipulate people’s opinions.
True, in the commercial context. May be true in reportage but I’ve never seen it.
Meanwhile, I have crumbs of experience in market research stuff and even in a neutral context, they can fail to properly assess the data resulting in skewed conclusions.
I subscribe to Spotify and like the fact that I can find a lot of obscure Rock on there. That said, I have no desire to support a company that supports Joe Rogan - a third-rate comic doing an impersonation of what Howard Stern was like in the 1990s. I'm thinking Apple might be a good option. I assume the library there is as deep as Spotify's is.
Neil Young is a very powerful guy. Spotify knows it. Losing not only Neil Young but a lot of other artists will hurt them badly. I doubt keeping Rogan will be worth it.
They signed Joe Blowgan to a $100 million contract to make him the New Rush Limbaugh. They will gladly let Neil Young pull his music off their service.
Neil Young's millions of fans will beg to differ. His music catalog alone is worth one hell of a lot more than Joe Rogan. And Young isn't the only one decamping from Spotify.
I left Facebook some years ago. I decided I would not contribute to the delinquency of a nation. I managed to retain contact with some ‘friends’, but I lost track of others. Indeed, it’s not easy being green 🤣
Essentially what they're doing is running a poll, but everyone knows that a poll with 10 people in it is worthless, so they call it something else. The polls aren't telling them what they want to hear, so they just make smaller and smaller ones.
Thank you for shining a light on the obvious reality that these focus groups are just more right wing garbage. We live in a world where media consolidation and takeover by the insanely rich who benefit from GOP policy are reporting “the news” snipped, manipulated and focused to represent their big money interests. I’m ever grateful for independent journalists who really live the WaPo tagline “Democracy Dies in the Dark”
On a lighter note, this reminded me of an SNL skit that I was thinking was a focus group but it was a taste test. If you need a laugh, go to YouTube and search SNL Taste Test. Brings me tears every time.
Thank you for keeping tabs on the Press. I blog on Medium. My latest was titled "Will Journalism Save Our Democracy?" Sadly, I concluded, no. I gave you a mention in the piece. I monitor CNN's web site and have probably sent them 25 emails the past several months. Early this week they blared in the upper left lead that the crashing stock market was a big problem for Biden. By the end of the day, the market had fully recovered. Follow up story? What follow up story? Today we learned the our annual economy grew by 5.7%. Yet, no big lead on the CNN site, just a small story on the site's far right, and it was tied to the market being up because of a strong economic report. One of my blog's readers responded by turned my question on its ear. "Will Democracy Survive Journalism?"
Two immediate thoughts - remember that the media constantly describe Joe Manchin as moderate, so a "moderate voter" in a focus group is likely right of center. And the despicable Frank Luntz uses focus groups for political branding. He's the guy who coined "illegal immigrant," and "death tax" to help Republicans spread their bile. When the despicable Eric Cantor lost a primary to a Tea Party nutcase, Luntz spent 5 minutes on CBS' morning show claiming the election result was AWFUL for America without bothering to disclose that he had been working for Cantor. Starting with Newt's contract on America, Luntz has been poisoning the national discourse for years, which is why it was laughable over the past couple of years when he would go on TV and feign an inability to understand how Trump made it to the White House.
fact that NYT teams up w/ Luntz….
Is anyone surprised about that?
I have friends who were shocked when I told them who Luntz really is or the role he has played in manipulating the public’s impression of right wing policies. They were talking about how they didn’t understand how we got here. I gave the example of how he came up with the term privatization because Republicans knew the public hated the idea of turning Medicare over to insurance companies. Focus groups found the term “privatization” much less alarming. Of course Democrats should have countered with calling it “profitization” to make it clear what Republicans were trying to do. And this isn’t happening just in the US. Boris Johnson and the plutocratic Tories have been trying to do the same to the NHS. He is also trying to eliminate the fee people pay to the BBC.
Most people don’t pay close enough attention to the behind the scenes of politics to understand just how we have been manipulated by the right. In fact most people I know who do pay pretty close attention have no clue how long this has been going on. As I posted above there Kurt Andersen’s recent book “Evil Geniuses” documents this decades long effort, dating it back to the 70s.
So, the question is, why is the NYT helping them and actively playing along?
I have been asking that question since the Times tried to destroy the Clintons back in the 90s.
So, nobody really knows why? They just do it because they can?
I think in that case, they had some kind of personal grudge that played out in the press. Some kind of New York thing, I think. But they definitely abused their position to create that trend, and have continued the tradition ever since.
I believe that Luntz also created the term “privatization”. What has really infuriated me is that after Republicans come up with anodyne labels for their toxic agenda the media often adopts them.
I recently listened to talk by Kurt Andersen about his book “Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America”.
https://youtu.be/ouD2Sl3hxN0
Andersen describes how the petroleum industry decided to sell their climate denial “science”. One of their tactics was to come up with the term “climate change”. Sure enough the media has adopted it despite the fact that the more accurate term is global warming.
Andersen’s book is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the decades long project of billionaires and right wing ideologues to take control of our democracy. This concerted, well-funded effort began back in the 70s.The media has ignored their well-orchestrated, democracy-destroying machinations.
Yes it did begin in the 70s. The Right has been playing the long game and their patience has more than paid off. If you've never heard of the Powell Memo or read it a while ago, it's worth looking at again. It's a diabolically brilliant blueprint that the Right has followed to greater success than they ever imagined.
https://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/Powell%20Archives/PowellMemorandumTypescript.pdf
Anderson pinpoints the start of this plutocrat propaganda operation with the Powell Memo and with Milton Friedman’s declaration that corporations have no obligation to any group — not even employees or customers — other than making profits for shareholders.
Most people don’t understand the incredible power having an explicit set of beliefs has if you want to radically shift the Overton Window, i.e. what people accept as normal and acceptable. Democrats need to be able to articulate a competing vision and hammer it home.
Personally I think that vision should center on doing whatever is necessary to build and keep a healthy democracy — things like an informed citizenry, a thriving middle class with low levels of poverty which requires a healthy economy that benefits all, good education for all, a decent standard of living and above all STRONG VOTING PROTECTIONS!! The policies Democrats are trying to implement all serve the strengthening of our democracy. Their informal slogan should be “It’s our democracy stupid!”
Well, the problem right there is an informed citizenry. The occasional segments on late night showing just how stupid people are don't make me laugh; they make me want to weep. It's not just those who don't go to college; I see it in comments by "educated" liberals who have no understanding of how the government actually works. I hear it when knocking doors and making phone calls during campaigns. "Oh, there's an election coming up?"
Not to mention getting Dem voters to consider voting a civic duty that must be undertaken no matter what—and come out strong for every election, not just when it's time to choose a president. I'm so tired of the "I need to be excited by a candidate" bullshit or "I, didn't get X so I'm staying home."
If these voters haven't learned from four years of Trump and from losing Roe, I don't know what will get through to them.
But I like the "it's our democracy stupid!" Though frankly, this is an issue they shouldn't even have to keep repeating. If you live in any of the 7 states where they have consistently tried to undermine the vote or watched any of what happened on 1/6, you should be steaming mad and itching to get to the polls.
Voters in this country, including a number on the left, have much to answer for.
If you try to point out how Democrats in Florida who voted for Nader or just stayed home put Bush in office you get nasty denials but it really is true. People should be encouraged to think about how much better off we would be had Gore been elected and Carter re-elected. By now we would have done so much more to combat global warming. Both of them also were dedicated to making our government more effective and efficient.
As for messaging I think Democratic leaders take if for granted that people know what they are proposing will strengthen democracy but most people need to hear that repeatedly said and explained. Most people don’t realize that a hallmark of all strong democracies is a large, thriving middle class. We had a decent democracy (at least for white people) back in the 50s and 60s when government policies helped grow the middle class and there were far fewer uber wealthy people. The more we have increased the number of extremely wealthy people the weaker our democracy has become.
And by extension, if people really knew just how awful Republicans are at governing, how wasteful, inefficient and inept they are, this is something that should also be reiterated over and over, until it’s the go-to thought process for people in the general public. I’m all for taking the high road, but sometimes the truth just has to be told, no matter how harsh it may seem.
And herein lies the problem. How do you educate a citizenry inundated with propaganda from the right, and aided by rightwing media and supposedly neutral media?
I like the “It’s our democracy stupid”.
Forget the right wing media, as Steve Bannon has said it’s the mainstream media that does the real damage to Democrats. He said he used Breitbart to keep the base energized but always work to get things like the Clinton Foundation and Biden/Ukraine slanders into outlets like the NY Times and WaPo. Both of those smears came from books written by Bannon’s partner Peter Schweitzer.
Most of the public still gets their news from the mainstream media, particularly the NY Times, WaPo and network news which drives the rest of the MSM coverage. For years we have seen how their coverage drives perception among Democrats and independents.Just look at what they did to Gore.
It’s not that I don’t think right wing media is a serious threat to our democracy but if the MSM stopped trashing Biden and the Democrats and started making it clear just what they have accomplished it would make it much harder for Republicans to increase their power. It was just reported that our economy grew at almost 7% last quarter, far greater than predicted. but I bet we will hear much more about inflation, rising interest rates and stock market decline than we will about our high growth rate, the impressive number of new companies being formed or our very strong jobs growth. Republicans’ chance of regaining power is greatly increased as a direct result of that kind of unbalanced reporting.
The "shareholder revolution"—hand in hand with "trickle down economics" really screwed us, as did the demise of pensions and the rise of 401Ks in the 80s. (And then there's health care, big banks, big Agra, and big Pharma.) The 80s are a real gold mine for historians. Everything that's wrong with this country now kicked into gear on 11/4/80.
A hilarious side note: Carter won Georgia and West Virginia in that election.
Yep. As a child of the 80s, I can attest to this analysis.
I grew up across the Ohio from WVa and I remember that it was a Democratic stronghold back then.
Yes, the media happily amplifies the nonsense, and more often than not, the hypocrisy that abounds. No finer example than allowing anti-abortion zealots to be labeled "pro-life."
And "vaccine hesitancy." Smh
Entitlements. My personal favorite.
I didn't know that. I assumed "climate change" was coined in order to make people understand that the changes they see in weather patterns resulting from global warming are not necessarily higher temperatures (but the overall rise in planetary temp is very real). It was a way to dumb it down. For example, we've been having record low temperatures where I liv, so of course the Donald Trumps will say, "Global warming is a hoax! Look how cold it is!"
We've called it "Global Warming" since the early '70s, when the term was first coined, and I would know as I did my freshman science fair project on it 50 years ago. It was Luntz who got Bush the Shrub to use the more seemingly innocuous "Climate Change" because the real term was "too scary." Luntz is a Duntz.
It should be more accurately called 'global heating' as if we're trying to get the oceans to boil and supported by the data on oceanic temperatures. https://theconversation.com/ocean-heat-is-at-record-levels-with-major-consequences-174760
Interesting. I’ll have to check out the book. Thanks for the recommendation.
Which is why the “moderate voter” and “Independent voter” labels they place on these people to legitimize this hit job should be taken with a grain of salt. Seriously, the media should come with a disclaimer in situations like this, like they force lawyers and doctors and pharmaceutical companies to do before they are allowed to advertise. Media shows should be forced to do the same. So people know it’s just an infomercial to market conservatives.
Don't forget the biggest lie of all: "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming" because as he told Shrub, the latter was "too scary."
This is off topic but relevant to the media's handling of polls, and I need to vent. I was incensed earlier this week to hear an NPR reporter cite a poll of Russians' attitudes about Putin's buildup to invading Ukraine. The reporter said 60% of Russians support what Putin is doing. Never mentioned who conducted the poll, including how many people responded. Or the fact that Russians neither have freedom of speech or a free press and face reprisals for speaking out against the government.
For good measure the reporter threw in a comment that Biden is "struggling" to deal with the Ukranian issue, the pandemic, inflation, and so on. Am I "struggling" when I'm trying to fix a leaky faucet or merely working to fix it? All of this, including using focus groups to gauge voter sentiment, is embarrassing and pathetic. As Gore Vidal once said: "At any given moment, public opinion is a chaos of superstition, misinformation, and prejudice."
That's the press for you - Biden is always "struggling" or "scrambling," as though he is incompetent. I think it smacks of ageism and political bias. The writers at WaPo do this daily.
Ageism is a factor that from my reading isn't often mentioned.
That's because it's as entrenched as sexism. People make assumptions about older folks and it is prejudice in its purest form - when the assumptions are accepted as true without a second thought. Dr. Fauci is probably the most amazing scientific mind since Stephen Hawking, but if you'll check out the editorial by Kathleen Parker published in WaPo yesterday, you'll see how it reeks with ageism. She called for him to step down, and for the silliest of reasons. Readers ate her alive, which was heartening. And there was also sexism - a reader comment referred to her as a bimbo.
I don't see the ageism in Parker's column that you do. I do see suspect logic. For example, I very much doubt Fauci is worn down by all of his on-camera appearances. It's more like a crushing workload and living under the stress of threats on his life and that of his family. And in Parker's reasoning the legions of people who embrace lies, undermining public health, need someone in Fauci's role they can trust, someone who would make them "feel better."
BTW, I crossed paths with Parker while we worked at another newspaper years ago. She's no spring chicken — 71 like me.
You're entitled to your opinion, and being 71 doesn't mean you can spot ageism every time. I'm 64 and it jumped right out at me. I doubt Parker gives a dead rat's ass about Fauci's well being.
You're a little harsh given I'm simply expressing an opinion different than yours. We agree the column missed the mark. I don't claim to be an expert on ageism. And I mentioned my age because it's the same as Parker. I have experienced ageism, as early as my 50s.
Pro-tip: Anytime you see the words “Frank Luntz” and “focus group” hold onto your seats, you are about to be lied to.
he managed to find 14 "independents" who all mouth GOP talking points
It's funny how it works that way. And those GOP talking points mirror the media "failure" narrative.
I'm betting he walked into a diner at lunchtime and chose everybody there with no party preference on their voter registration.
It’s ridiculously absurd.
I would suggest that any time you see the words "Frank Luntz," you have already been lied to. You don't need a focus group for that.
Luntz, like a number of conservatives, has left the Republican Party, but the damage he has done is incalculable.
You reminded me that Luntz (along with Newt) was the author of the despicable vocabulary training at GOPAC in the '90s that propelled the GOP’s use of framing the Left as “others” - the list is here: https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html
I wouldn't believe Luntz as far as I could throw his fat ass. He says he left the GOP, but his actions belie that obvious lie.
Just needs to phone it in nowadays…😒
More so than Atwater?…
Atwater did massive damage. Luntz, I believe is worse, because he's changed our language and discourse.
Yep.
Does the press care of the focus group is insightful or does it only care that it can make those who are not paying close attention think it is insightful? I vote for the latter. When I read (or tried to plow thru) the NYT article, all I could think was that "these people are not independents, these people are Republicans who know the brand is toxic so choose to call themselves independent." and the presence of the odious Frank Luntz was the dead giveaway. Face it folks, we have entered the era of normalizing the insurrection, bashing Biden, and preparing for the triumphal return of Republicans to their proper place running the country (into the ground). It is so much easier for the elite access stenographers of the Beltway Press Corp to repeat GOP talking points than to do their jobs properly. After all, that is what made most of them rich.
I think it is worse than the press just trying to make people think these groups will give them insight into how Americans are thinking. God know why but press has to be deliberately trying to convince people that Biden is a total failure. They know recent polls (Pew for example) show 75% of Democrats supporting Biden’s performance and a majority of swing voters who lean Dem also still support him.
Biden is boring. While the stories of his successes would write themselves if the press would try, there is a preference for the constant drama and clickbait that Republicans provide. Also, access to Republicans gets them invites to better parties.
Do you think "the press" is a collective entity engaged as a group in plotting against truth? Sounds like it. That's a little paranoid.
I think that the elite Beltway media is a bunch of generally lazy, entitled folk who grew comfortable with the chaos of the Trump years when it was easy to write about the chaos without writing about the substance or the implications. There are exceptions to that for sure, but sadly not enough of them.
It's not a plot, but it's the result of herd mentality combined with the Beltway's dislike of Biden and reporters' highly selective "our job is to challenge those in power." With the exception of RW outlets, political journalists would never admit that they have a bias or that they want bring Biden down.
There is a lot of evidence that the mainstream DC political press is a tight knit, incestuous social group which fosters group think and a desire to fit in with the cool crowd. Nowadays Republicans are no longer part of that group but the others are. It is how they make contacts that help them further their careers.
During one Gore Bradley debate the press were in a separate room. They literally booed and hissed at Gore. Don’t take my work for it, this is how Jake Tapper described their horrifying behavior:
“Well, I can tell you that the only media bias I have detected in terms of a group media bias was, at the first debate between Bill Bradley and Al Gore, there was hissing for Gore in the media room up at Dartmouth College. The reporters were hissing Gore, and that’s the only time I’ve ever heard the press room boo or hiss any candidate of any party at any event.”
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121802.shtml
When I reread the Post one thing stood out — Howard Kurtz used to be an aggressive critic of the media. He has done a 180 since he decided to go to Fox.
The most visible Republican office holders may no longer be welcome at the kool kidz table, but the movers and shakers of the DC Republican political establishment certainly are, and it is access to them that the DC political press wants access to.
There is no lie the Press Corpse won't tell to bolster the GOP!
They don't have to lie. They just ignore the daily outrages of the GOP to the detriment of all of us.
Lying by omission :/
As always, it's about creating controversies where they don't exist, attracting viewers and scoring those high ratings. I personally have no interest in TV news shows, and no interest in what other voters think of Joe Biden. But knowing how people so easily influence each other, these phony focus groups bother the hell out of me. They're not news, they are phony "infotainment" and do not enlighten or educate viewers. But this is what passes for political journalism today. No wonder Trump's mostly silent. With the press piling on Biden, Trump can go play golf and trust that his reelection campaign is running itself.
and i think the press truly loves focus groups bc, after pounding Biden for months, they can turn around and say, 'see voters agree!' and pretend voters aren't just repeating what press has said
It’s a vicious cycle that fills me with rage. As a journalist, I am still trying to wrap my head around the complete lack of standards and ethical responsibility.
Exactly! Saw the first one discussed on Twitter a few months ago and the media folk were rapturous because they had another doom and gloom storyline to pursue and flog.
Me too. It isn’t relevant in the grand scheme of things, but it bugs the hell out of me, mainly because news sources should freaking know better. This sort of thing is better left to Breibart and OANN and Newsmax. For it to be in what people are supposed to trust to be a reliable news source is despicable. As a journalist, this kind of thing keeps me up at night.
What has bothered me for decades is that the news media takes advantage of the vulnerabilities of their audiences, that people trust them to tell the truth and also that people are likely to believe something is true if others believe it. Journalists are like doctors in that they possess knowledge the rest of us don't, and we depend on them as individuals and as a profession to be honest with us. I've been reading Eric's blog for a long time because I finally found someone who makes me feel my perceptions aren't crazy.
Yep. There should be accountability. The 1st Amendment should not be an unfettered right to lie and propagate, especially when those lies and propaganda put the general population in danger. There should be specific standards they have to meet or a disclaimer on their stories when they don’t meet those standards. It should be clear to their audience whether or not they are presenting facts and unbiased reporting. I still maintain The Fairness Doctrine is the easiest solution.
Call me a bitchy old woman, but I find it hard to adjust to a reality where there is a loss of integrity in politics and in the news media we get our news from. Holy shit, the amount of lying going on in reporting on covid, vaccines and everything related is phenomenal - and the lack of integrity in those who allow themselves to be platforms for it. Not only Spotify and Joe Rogan, but Substack and Alex Berenson. I unsubscribed in protest and I wish everyone else would follow suit, until Substack stops acting as a megaphone for this asshole.
The obsession around these "moderate" undecided voters stems in my opinion from the idea the media has that it has found the hack for election analysis. The Presidential election boils down to a group of swing states and in those swing states there are a group of swing voters. Thus all other voices can be ignored since they have found the magic key to the election. I really wish they would spend more time interrogating the notion of democracy rather than accepting GOP agitprop that the Electoral College is "What The Founders Intended" and therefore cannot be questioned. It seem likely that any GOP candidate but especially Trump, would likely only be able to win a bare EC victory and a substantial popular vote defeat. Yet rarely is the notion of minority rule questioned in terms of what it means for the majority of citizens.
these are also low information swing voters who are featured—but that’s never mentioned
I would bet their “swing voters” were actually people who lean Republican. In fact I bet there were no strong Democrats in that group given that the recent Pew Poll shows 75% of Democrats still support the job Biden has been doing.
def. seems to me a lot of these "independent" voters were folks who voted for Trump 2016, decided yeah, he's kind of insane, and then two months into Biden just went back to their GOP roots
Bear in mind also that Biden got a lot of independents in 2020 whose votes were based in their desire to vote out Trump more than anything else.
And those were the people we desperately need to keep. They are mostly suburban college educated voters. Because many of those voters were rattled by the media obsession over defunding the police and socialism they split their tickets and voted for Republicans down ballot which is why Congressional Democrats didn’t do nearly as well as had been predicted.
And the "suburban housewives" Trump adored ended up deserting him. I'm still amused by his delusional belief that women love him. Most don't.
I think the entire concept of “independent voter” is a fallacy the media created to make this kind of reporting more palatable. The “independents” they get always lean right. Always. I have never met or seen on a news segment someone claiming to be an “independent” who didn’t spout rightwing talking points to justify their position. I think they would vote for the next batshit crazy authoritarian in a heartbeat.
"Independents" is a term used when they want to appear unbiased. I have never met an "independent" who wasn't actually a Republican but who refuses to identify themselves as such.
Ali Velshi, weekends msnbc, has interviewed several small groups of citizens from all over the country w/varied political stances and interesting views about topics eg immigration, voter suppression, over the past couple of years. I found each group interview informative and no ringers were included to skew views one way or another. Eric’s point about Luntz’s focus groups being conducted among low information swing voters is an essential fact to include while explaining the ‘conclusions?’ drawn from these non representative focus groups. And the public buys these conclusions and interpret them as facts. Of course, that’s the BIG problem. More disappointments from msm.
We need a federal level fact-checker and/or bias monitor - (or something like that)…
And why the Electoral College must be abolished but highly unlikely in my lifetime.
Frank Luntz has pulled the strings behind the scenes for years. A few months ago, I listened to an interview between Luntz and Andy Slavitt where Luntz was bemoaning the rampant misinformation about Covid and vaccinations, and urging 'compassion and love' to counter the divisions. This tripe from a man who spent his life undermining democracy by promoting unfettered capitalism and raw power grabs through deceptive branding and misinformation. Almost a million deaths later, and nothing has changed...he's back to undermining democracy. With few exceptions, the media are 1) failing to explain the reality of daily life under authoritarian regimes, 2) failing to explain the phenomenon of worldwide inflation, 3) failing to explain why Russia's actions are imperiling the post WWII world order (and why Trump's pandering to Putin opened the door to this perilous moment), and 4) the destruction that will be wrought by a GOP majority Congress in 2023 (endless vengeance, chaos, further crippling if the rule of law, further rollback of regulations protecting air/water/food/worker's rights.
Great assessment! Wondering where the D equivalent to Luntz is…? Carville dates back to the Clinton era, geez…odd
Carville is a political strategist, yes he understands communications, but he doesn't do linguisitics; he's a nitty gritty politics guy. No one the left does what Luntz does, and he has been a success because the media picks up and amplifies his aka GOP talking points. Luntz knows his twisted shorthand isn't just for the voters; it's to manipulate the people who get the message to the voters: the reporters.
OK - let me get this straight… D’s ‘mill around’ for 30+ years while rw radio builds and evolves… Luntz & co refine/perfect marketing and evasive language to course through the media (on all levels) - Fox News hardens metastasizes - and when I turn on the D ‘answer’ to all of this - MSNBC- the first mug I see is… Joe Scarborough’s. 😐
The Powell Memo was not well known for many years, so it's not like Democrats were sitting around going "oh well." Some on our side did try to get a foothold with Air America but they couldn't get enough listeners and folded. What sells is anger, hate, and lies—from crackpots like Art Bell to the truly venomous like Rush. When Regan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine and Congress lifted the limits on media conglomeration the juggernaut was born.
See, MSNBC IS NOT the D's "answer." The block from 4-12 definitely more so, but daytime, with an exception here and there, not at all.
For whatever reason, the best and brightest liberals are more interested in doing other things than politics.
Thanks for the add’l info… it was also disheartening to see some of Obama’s ‘brightest’ exit DC as soon as they reasonably could - maybe DC is just not for the well-intentioned/idealistic. At ALL. It’s easy to over simplify - there are an awful lot of dynamics at play.
Yes. And if you watch any of the Andersen clips (he did a lot of press when the book came out) please keep in mind when he's criticizing the Dems, that in the early 90s, the GOP was so ascendent and riding the Reagan high that to stave off extinction, Dems needed to switch tacks to win elections—which is why we got "welfare as we know it is dead" etc. I screamed about it at the time, but understood why it was happening.
If Clinton and the Dems hadn't won, it's guaranteed SS, Medicare, etc would have been cut, privatized, and/or means tested. We'd be in even worse shape than we are.
JFC -I didn’t even touch social media…
Time to get moving…
3 reasons that I see: 1) Democrats don't have the same endless pools of dark money funding local and state infrastructure, 2) Democratic leadership refuses to use its own bully pulpit to call for (loudly and often) and to elevate grassroots efforts to counter the coordinate GOP attack on democracy, 3) senior Democratic leadership (because of narrow self-interest) refuses to unite behind a broad anti-corruption message that enjoys unparalleled support across the country.
+‘legendary’ leaders that didn’t/couldn’t hand the baton seamlessly to the next generation…? A little late for a comment like this, but?!
Eric, first I wanted to thank you for being the lone voice of sanity on Biden's press coverage. Having dedicated 2019-2020 to his campaign as a volunteer & this past year hoping to help unwind Jan 6 via a sedition hunters groups, it is beyond me why MSM is pushing such dangerous & misleading rhetoric.
I was wondering if you have any suggestions re: what we can do as media consumers to fight this trend ? I currently subscribe to a number of National publications -- what is the best way to vocalize how dangerous I feel this all is and be heard. Any thoughts ?
Clearly these groups were deliberately skewed to hype the dishonest storyline that Biden is failing. Poll numbers tell a different tale. Biden’s performance is approved by 75% of Democrats and by a majority of those who lean Democratic.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/01/25/views-of-joe-biden/
The media is deliberately framing that story as “Biden’s approval ratings among Dems has tanked ” — it is true his numbers are down 20 points but that is deeply misleading because they have dropped from an unusually high 95% approval among Dems.
These focus groups are blatantly biased. If they had been chosen by objective standards intended to give viewers real insight into how Americans are thinking then 3/4 of the Democrats would have had positive things to say about Biden.
Our media has allowed itself to become an arm of the right wing propaganda machine. The fact that they would use the odious right wing spinner Frank Luntz is proof. He used to do this regularly for NBC with little criticism. Those same networks would never choose someone like James Carville to do the questioning.
That the New York Times hired Frank Luntz to do anything other than mop floors is a testament to how low the Old Gray Lady has stooped to perpetuate her own lazy and false narratives about Biden.
Luntz was, after all, the guy who organized the non-governing obstruction policy of the GOP on the evening of January 20, 2009 at The Caucus Room steakhouse where they all agreed that the best way to deal with Obama/Biden was to oppose and try to tank everything they proposed, even if they agreed with it, or caused the very messes Obama/Biden inherited, their oaths office be damned.
Robert Draper nailed it well in his book "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside The House of Representatives": https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/6/8/1098434/-Eric-Cantor-Paul-Ryan-Kevin-McCarthy-Plot-To-Sabotage-US-Economy-with-Frank-Luntz
"Looking for additional ways to pile on President Joe Biden...". Sorry to say, made me laugh.
Anyway.
As Eric made clear but could have made a bit clearer, focus groups are insanely manipulatable. As a rule there is no justification for reporting on one, even less than that for a hard news operation to run one. Too, not like there aren't better, more important things to report were our awesome, exceptional mainstream interested in doing: Accurate reporting on the Biden economy, maybe fact-based reporting on Ukraine instead of just reporting what the Blob wants reported (too little of which is true). But we get focused groups.
Professionals who really want to get a realistic picture of how people are thinking go out of their way to avoid any manipulation. When I lived in Texas I participated in several focus groups for new products. (Not only did we get paid we got to try out some great products — one was either for Dove Bars or Eskimo bars, another was for champagne. There was another for a tortilla chip with cheese on one side that everyone hated. That product never say the light of day.)
At the time I was in grad school studying child cognitive development. I was taking courses about how to do research with heavy emphasis on how to avoid introducing bias so I paid close attention to how these groups were being conducted. The people conducting the group asked completely neutral questions that gave no clue what product we were testing.
Clearly Frank Luntz is a professional — a professional propagandists who not only doesn’t care about being objective, but is using professional techniques to deliberately manipulate people’s opinions.
True, in the commercial context. May be true in reportage but I’ve never seen it.
Meanwhile, I have crumbs of experience in market research stuff and even in a neutral context, they can fail to properly assess the data resulting in skewed conclusions.
The news media doesn’t hold itself to being objective and apparently neither does Frank Luntz.
That’s for sure. Must be all the inconvenient truths they’d have to report so being full of shit is safer.
Sloppy, lazy ‘journalism.’
I wonder if 'ordinary' people will emulate Mr. Young and seek alternative entertainment sources.
I subscribe to Spotify and like the fact that I can find a lot of obscure Rock on there. That said, I have no desire to support a company that supports Joe Rogan - a third-rate comic doing an impersonation of what Howard Stern was like in the 1990s. I'm thinking Apple might be a good option. I assume the library there is as deep as Spotify's is.
At least some artists are starting to demand their music be taken off Spotify. Neil Young just made that demand.
Neil Young is a very powerful guy. Spotify knows it. Losing not only Neil Young but a lot of other artists will hurt them badly. I doubt keeping Rogan will be worth it.
They signed Joe Blowgan to a $100 million contract to make him the New Rush Limbaugh. They will gladly let Neil Young pull his music off their service.
Neil Young's millions of fans will beg to differ. His music catalog alone is worth one hell of a lot more than Joe Rogan. And Young isn't the only one decamping from Spotify.
He is and always has been fiercely independent.
I left Facebook some years ago. I decided I would not contribute to the delinquency of a nation. I managed to retain contact with some ‘friends’, but I lost track of others. Indeed, it’s not easy being green 🤣
Essentially what they're doing is running a poll, but everyone knows that a poll with 10 people in it is worthless, so they call it something else. The polls aren't telling them what they want to hear, so they just make smaller and smaller ones.
Thank you for shining a light on the obvious reality that these focus groups are just more right wing garbage. We live in a world where media consolidation and takeover by the insanely rich who benefit from GOP policy are reporting “the news” snipped, manipulated and focused to represent their big money interests. I’m ever grateful for independent journalists who really live the WaPo tagline “Democracy Dies in the Dark”
On a lighter note, this reminded me of an SNL skit that I was thinking was a focus group but it was a taste test. If you need a laugh, go to YouTube and search SNL Taste Test. Brings me tears every time.
Gotta hype the game, sells more tickets.
Thank you for keeping tabs on the Press. I blog on Medium. My latest was titled "Will Journalism Save Our Democracy?" Sadly, I concluded, no. I gave you a mention in the piece. I monitor CNN's web site and have probably sent them 25 emails the past several months. Early this week they blared in the upper left lead that the crashing stock market was a big problem for Biden. By the end of the day, the market had fully recovered. Follow up story? What follow up story? Today we learned the our annual economy grew by 5.7%. Yet, no big lead on the CNN site, just a small story on the site's far right, and it was tied to the market being up because of a strong economic report. One of my blog's readers responded by turned my question on its ear. "Will Democracy Survive Journalism?"