MSNBC journos oblivious to their role in political debates
October 28, 2009 12:19 pm ET by Jamison Foser
MSNBC's Nancy Snyderman and Savannah Guthrie just discussed health care polling:
Snyderman: I must say I have looked at these numbers since last night and into this morning. I think they are all over the place. Which, to me underscores the confusion about what's what.
Gutherie: Yeah, you know, I had the exact same reaction. Kind of, "What?!?" You really see Americans all over the map. On the one hand, support for the public option growing. On the other hand, when you ask if they like the president's plan, which he has said he supports a public option, the majority don't like it.
So what you really take away from all of these conflicting and self-contradictory numbers is, there's a failure of message here. Either Americans don't understand what it is, whether or not to oppose it or favor it, because you see them thinking that it's going to make costs go up, but then some people think it should pass. It's really hard to look at these numbers and come up with a consistent philosophy as to how Americans feel about health care reform. And if that is the case so far into this debate, one really wonders where the messaging is, and where the failure is.
Where to start?
Is Savannah Guthrie really surprised that American public opinion is not monolithic?
Are MSNBC reporters really just realizing that polling on health care reform yields contradictory results?
Guthrie thinks disjointed poll results "so far into this debate" shows a "failure of message" on the part of reform advocates. Does she really not understand that a "debate" involves two sides, and that the two sides have been saying contradictory things, and that if the public has trouble sorting out what's true, that means the media has done a lousy job of making clear which claims are true and which are false?
Guthrie never so much as hints at the possibility that maybe the media haven't done a good job of explaining health care reform. The lack of self-awareness is stunning.
We distort - You deride.
Does she really not understand that a "debate" involves two sides, and that the two sides have been saying contradictory things, and that if the public has trouble sorting out what's true, that means the media has done a lousy job of making clear which claims are true and which are false?
.... that leads me to say that we need to find a way to get rid of FoxNews' nonsense out of the mainstream, respected category. The way to do that is to continue to have their nonsense called out for what it is. The White House is a great partner in that effort - they are trying to improve the information that our nation's citizens get because it's urgent that we make decisions powered by factual information and informed opinion, not by the distortions and omissions we get from FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh, et al.
It isn't about what the "truth" is, it is about "are my ratings better than the other guys".
When I see or hear an exchange like that I usually think that they are in over their heads and don't do much soul-searching regarding their own confusion when they should know what they are talking about. Don't do any homework. Just wing it.
Snyderman makes my case when she says " I must say I have looked at these numbers since last night and into this morning. I think they are all over the place. Which, to me underscores the confusion about what's what."
Duh!