Thursday, May 04, 2006
The Supreme Court is off the hook; Fox News is to blame for the Bush Presidency
Sometimes you read something so mind-numbingly dumb, that you have to read and re-read it just to make sure you’re not missing something. Richard Morin in today’s Washington Post passes on the results of a study that concludes Fox News was responsible for the President’s victory in 2000 :
"Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 8 percent of its audience to shift its voting behavior towards the Republican Party, a sizable media persuasion effect," said Stefano DellaVigna of the University of California at Berkely and Ethan Kaplan of Stockholm University.”
Fox News “convinced” voters to shift their voting behaviors?? Does this make sense to you? All we hear is how Fox News is merely preaching to the choir of its conservative audience (and, coincidentally, the very next section of his article discusses just this tendency). Are these ‘economists” (from Berkeley & Stockholm, no less) saying that Fox’s conservative audience was leaning nevertheless to Vice President Gore?
Here’s why this is such a big deal:
“In Florida alone, they estimate, the Fox effect may have produced more than 10,000 additional votes for Bush -- clearly a decisive factor in a state he carried by fewer than 600 votes. “
Yeah, clearly but let’s not forget that when the polls closed at 7PM in Florida, they closed first in the Eastern Time Zone part of Florida. The western panhandle, a Republican stronghold, still had an hour to go because it is on Central Time. Oblivious to all this, many networks were quick to call Florida polls closed. NBC then called the state for Vice President Gore at 7:48 PM (EST) and the others (including Fox) quickly followed. All this arguably discouraged a greater Republican turnout in the western panhandle, resulting in a much narrower vote differential than it should have been. (see generally: CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000)
Finally, the study concludes on the power of Fox apparently without taking into account the CNN effect. Did the unrivaled power of CNN through the 90’s help elect Bill Clinton such that Fox merely became a counterweight to CNN’s biases? The article glosses over the fact that in 2000, Fox News was only available to 1 in 5 viewers; doesn’t mention that MSNBC was also on air and bigger than Fox at the time; and seemingly ignores the trend that electing a Republican president had become the norm going back to1968.
I know Mr. Morin didn’t conduct the study but a little healthy skepticism would have been a nice touch.
"Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 8 percent of its audience to shift its voting behavior towards the Republican Party, a sizable media persuasion effect," said Stefano DellaVigna of the University of California at Berkely and Ethan Kaplan of Stockholm University.”
Fox News “convinced” voters to shift their voting behaviors?? Does this make sense to you? All we hear is how Fox News is merely preaching to the choir of its conservative audience (and, coincidentally, the very next section of his article discusses just this tendency). Are these ‘economists” (from Berkeley & Stockholm, no less) saying that Fox’s conservative audience was leaning nevertheless to Vice President Gore?
Here’s why this is such a big deal:
“In Florida alone, they estimate, the Fox effect may have produced more than 10,000 additional votes for Bush -- clearly a decisive factor in a state he carried by fewer than 600 votes. “
Yeah, clearly but let’s not forget that when the polls closed at 7PM in Florida, they closed first in the Eastern Time Zone part of Florida. The western panhandle, a Republican stronghold, still had an hour to go because it is on Central Time. Oblivious to all this, many networks were quick to call Florida polls closed. NBC then called the state for Vice President Gore at 7:48 PM (EST) and the others (including Fox) quickly followed. All this arguably discouraged a greater Republican turnout in the western panhandle, resulting in a much narrower vote differential than it should have been. (see generally: CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000)
Finally, the study concludes on the power of Fox apparently without taking into account the CNN effect. Did the unrivaled power of CNN through the 90’s help elect Bill Clinton such that Fox merely became a counterweight to CNN’s biases? The article glosses over the fact that in 2000, Fox News was only available to 1 in 5 viewers; doesn’t mention that MSNBC was also on air and bigger than Fox at the time; and seemingly ignores the trend that electing a Republican president had become the norm going back to1968.
I know Mr. Morin didn’t conduct the study but a little healthy skepticism would have been a nice touch.
