It may simply be idealism as to the American people or perhaps cynicism regarding the news, but I have to wonder about the coverage of some issues. For instance, the article LabRat mentioned stated that 12% of the voters in the primaries had reported that race was a factor. When I read this a couple of things instantly came to mind.
1) That means 88% stated that it wasn’t a factor yet was the coverage the matter received representative of that percentage split or did the racist slant receive the bulk of the coverage thus creating a misperception of the issue? Unfortunately, not everyone hears the 12% qualifier. All they see is the heavy coverage of the racism issue and it gives the perception that it is larger than it is. Now bear in mind I’m not saying that 12% is acceptable as it’s certainly something that needs correction in the long term. I’m just saying that the 88% shouldn’t be downplayed and I feel that too often it is.
For example, look at the article at the beginning of this thread. That person obviously viewed the US as a racist nation. With potentially 88% not being racist (if you used Pennsylvania as a national representation) then where would they have gotten that perception? I would imagine that most citizens of other countries get their information about the US from our news programs. If the news is light on “news” and heavy on “slant” then the information they’re receiving that contributes to that perception is a prime example of the G.I.G.O. principle. Unfortunately, the axiom “If it bleeds, it leads” is still in play with most news organizations.
2) Having spent too much of my education engaged in research classes (which made both my head and my teeth hurt) I’m all too aware of how studies or polls can be influenced. Data gathering and data interpretation are often the two key points that get the most “spin” when it comes down to a study. For example, a question of patriotism might be included in a poll on potential racism in regards to Obama. The reasoning behind this might appear sound on the surface because the researcher is aware of the amount of misinformation out there regarding Obama’s religious beliefs as well as the negative connotations attached to his name thereby giving the matter a more “racial” slant. However, a person responding in the negative regarding a patriotism question might not be referring to race at all, but rather have issue with a particular ideology they may have interpreted as being espoused by Sen. Obama. Would that particular response be readily identified and thus excluded from the poll? Or, lacking any way to differentiate would it instead be included in the negative percentage and therefore inflate the results? It’s all in the methodology and that’s usually something we get only the sketchiest of information about if any at all.
I’ll use the ACORN issue as an example. There are some people that feel that ACORN as a whole is corrupt and other people who state that it was just individual ACORN employees who were being lazy and sloppy in their work that created the voter registration issues. If the latter is the case then could perhaps the same thing be possible with poll workers?
All I’m saying is that with the absence of Tim Russert I see very, very few news people left these days that just provide news. The vast majority of them are much more commentators and spin jockeys for their own ideologies than objective journalists.
My recommendation is to listen carefully to whatever is said and with a few grains of salt handy for when you spot flaws in the logic. Of course, I also recommend turning off the TV whenever one news personality begins interviewing another news personality. That’s always been a clue to me that all “news” regarding the subject has been exhausted and all that’s left is the spin.
