I have a confession to make: I love cartoons. Who doesn't, really? They were like friendlier, much younger versions of real role models when we were kids. In a way, they still are.
But the reason we all love cartoons (or pretend not to and hide it secretly) is because we can understand them. For the most part, they make sense. That's because they're designed frame by frame, with at least some attention to detail, put in logical order with a storyboard, then sped up and eventually turned into a final show with an engaging and logical plot.
So why can't the media do the same thing with tracking polls? What is so inherently difficult about ordering polling data in a logical sequence and repoting on it as a trend? Even in the 21st century, where media even at its most informative is little better than a cartoon for grownups, I think society demands better.
If anyone outside of the academic world or smoke-filled rooms of political strategists can understand public (and internal) polling data, it's the media. Over the last ten years, news desks have overflowed with (otherwise unemployed) political analysts and operatives, film noir private eyes of the new glossy screen journalism, supposedly tasked with digesting political news into easy, single-serving and relatively low-calorie treats for the viewing public. I would think reporting on trends in public opinion, instead of annoyingly shallow snapshots, would be part of that.
There is literally no way to understand elections, public opinion, or any change in anyone's opinion over any period of time without understanding it as a trend. By giving us a single frame from the current political cartoon we get nothing; hell, we don't even get useful talking points. We literally get no information about our own collective opinions, and hence are disconnected from collective society.
But for now, all I know is that the poll that came out in state x yesterday is different than the one in state y from last week. why are they different, how are they different, why am I wasting my morning watching people screw up polling data when I could be making eggs?
Because, I love cartoons.
We started to discuss this point a little bit in class the other day, and I completely agree that it's almost impossible to understand who is consistently polling where. Especially when candidates THEMSELVES claim to be "surging" in the polls. I think CNN has a lot to do with this problem, as they seem to be more concerned with the fanciest way of showing polls and graphs, rather than analyzing what they mean. I would be weary to blame all media sources for this cartoonish obsession, though. I think it might have been Christine who mentioned in class that NPR really does have terrific pieces on a consistent basis.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, if polls were reported as trends rather than single events, it would be a lot harder to sensationalize each and every one. And given our over-the-top 24-hour new cycle, they might not see that as being beneficial in terms of ratings.