Thanks but, No Thanks Poli Sci

“If media surveillance causes governments to fall and public officials to be ousted, democracy is well served” Doris A. Graber (2010)

I can understand what Graber must have meant when she wrote this line in her book, “Mass Media and American Politics”. She came to the conclusion that a major role that the media pay in a democracy is the people’s watchdog on the government. Her statement obligates the media to report to the people every and any events that in turn would mobilize the people to cause “…governments to fall and public officials to be ousted…” Graber also notes that the media must also “interpret the events’ meanings, [and] put them into context.”

What must we conclude then, when the media, not only fails to do so but, report false claims within their interpretation of event’s, which then leads a group of people to want “public officials to be ousted”, on such false premises?

 “As outrageous as those breaches of decency are, they are merely the latest extension of Obama’s polarizing presidency.”(1)

“President Obama's intensity remained static during that same period, but he remains more polarizing than Romney.”(2)

“Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever.” (3)

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!

(Excuse me for my abbreviations, but seriously why must so many Americans be exposed to such horrendous misleading information?)

The latest attacks on President Obama have made me sick, and would likely make Sean Theriault rip his hair out. 

Who is Sean Theriault? Well you may know him as the author of a little book titled “Party Polarization in Congress.” In his book Theriault covers four major variables which he finds to significantlyinfluence party polarization in Congress; these are as follows: redistricting, geographic sorting, the institutions and procedures of the House and Senate, and the influence of party activist.

Wait. Did Theriault miss something? Are these journalists on the cutting edge of research on party polarization? Or are there methods of determining that President Obama is the cause of polarization through a gallop poll severely flawed? (3)

We need a watchdog over our watchdog. Be it Jon Stewart or Sean Theriault, someone must report to the public all of the flaws the media make, for the sake of preventing Americans to be mal-informed by atrocities such as the one above. We need political science to be integrated into our mainstream media.

Thank you Brendon Nyhan and John Sides for your essay “How Political Science Can Help Journalism”

Though I fear your work may fall on the death ear’s of the media as most political science, such as Theriault’s work, has.

(1)    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/30/president-obama-is-getting-desperate-and-it-shows/#ixzz1taBa21K1

(2)    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865554601/Mitt-Romney-and-Barack-Obama-battle-for-voter-intensity-edge.html

(3)    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-the-most-polarizing-president-ever/2012/01/29/gIQAmmkBbQ_blog.html

Distrust in the Media and Confirmation Bias

Everyone knows that Republicans only watch conservative television shows like CNN and FOX, while Democrats watch MSNBC and ABC, right? We've covered it all throughout the class-- it appears as though Americans are highly polarized, and the supposed polarization in the coverage from major news stations where they receive their information reflects this.

This article discusses the relationship between media trust/distrust and the self-selection of news outlets. What the evidence in the article shows is that, according to the frequency by which Republicans and Democrats Americans have become increasingly more polarized since the 2000s. In 2000, whether respondents were satisfied with the media's coverage or not, there was no particularly strong relationship between attitudes toward the media and partisan self-selection of media outlets. In 2010, another study was done but this time, one that measured perceived levels of media bias against partisan self-selection of media outlets. The results of this second study reveal a truth about contemporary relationships between partisan self-selection and attitudes toward the media. Perception of media bias leads to distrust in major media outlets. Americans with these dispositions would tend to slip back into the comfort zone of attending to news outlets that confirm their attitudes and deeply held values, thereby securing them into an echo-chamber.

We've discussed the dangers of echo-chambers, whether it be through new media outlets like social networks or with traditional media like print and broadcast media. Just like the customization of friend lists and the accessibility to remove those from your sphere that disagree with your attitudes is dangerous, we can see this same sort trend even with the news outlets that Americans tune into.. or not.

The important thing is that even in the the midst of media uncertainty, it is vital that we stay informed via a broad range of media outlets and always be willing to engage in political dialogue with those that don't hold our attitudes, opinions, and beliefs politically.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/04/27/distrust-in-the-media-and-confirmation-bias/

Are the poles melting?

This blog by Ezra Klein is especially interesting to me, because I love Bill Clinton. I am an Obama fan (shocker, I know), but Bill Clinton is one of my favorite presidents. I also love Hillary, which may contribute a wee bit to my borderline obsession...who knows?

The post's argument is that, in retrospect, Bill Clinton has proven to be a non-polarizing president.  Many of Clinton's policies, though, were definitely more polarizing than Obama's.  Clinton's healthcare initiatives would currently be heavily criticized (and were upon their passage), as many are even more controversial than certain elements of Obamacare.  Additionally, Clinton's tax rates were higher than anything Obama's administration has even proposed thus far, and he passed the legislation for those tax rates very early on in his first term.  It's obvious that during the times he was passing these policies through, the polarization was very high.  Since Clinton is no longer a "threat to the Republican Party", he is no longer polarizing.  Oh, and the economy was awesome during his presidency, too.

What Ezra Klein is arguing here is that this example could very well also be the case for a not-so-polarizing judgement of Obama's policies later in time.  Once he is no longer a threat to the Republican Party, he will not be viewed as controversial or liberal as he is being perceived as now.  This is only true if the economy recovers, mind you.

I love this post, because it gives us an opportunity to attempt to evaluate exactly how much of an impact the media is having on shaping/influencing public opinion.  The fact that the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate and Presidency are Democratic obviously also contribute to the polarization of the electorate and public opinion as well, but have Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow gotten to us? Has the availability of the new media through social outlets affected our amount of polarization?

What contributes most in my opinion to polarization is how relevant the issues are which are being evaluated.  Obama's policies are more relevant than Clinton's right now, giving them a higher opportunity to be polarizing.  However, why is the polarization so intense? Is the electorate moving to the extremes, while our policies remain within the normal spectrum? I think this may be so. And I have a hunch the media is contributing to it.