WSJ uses GOP polls in article about good news for GOP
September 02, 2010 2:07 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
This seems a bit odd.
The Journal ran a big, A1 story today about how awful the political landscape is for Dems heading into November. I know, not exactly ground-breaking territory, but the topic is certainly fair game.
But look at how the Journal backed up its doom-and-gloom claim [emphasis added]:
Just months ago, Georgia's Rep. Jim Marshall faced only faint headwinds as he sailed toward the midterm elections. The former Macon mayor--and one of Congress's most conservative Democrats--had plenty of cash and no significant Republican opponent.
But in a reflection of his party's fortunes nationwide, Mr. Marshall's prospects have dimmed of late. The three-term congressman now faces an energized foe and the focus of the national Republican Party in a race that polls indicate is increasingly tight.
And which "polls" did the Journal reference?
But a recent Republican poll showed Mr. Marshall leading state Rep. Austin Scott by just five percentage points, within the poll's 5.7% margin of error. His overall support was just 44%, a bad sign for an incumbent.
So the "polls" showing the Republican candidate doing well was really a single poll. And it was a Republican poll.
And watch as the Journal did the same thing again in the same article:
Another seat that has tilted recently in the Republicans' favor is Pennsylvania's 8th District in the northeastern suburbs of Philadelphia, where two-term Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy is neck-and-neck with the man he beat in 2006, former Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick.
A Republican poll released last week showed Mr. Murphy lagging behind his opponent, 41%-48%. The Democratic Party is expected to sink significant money into the race.
Yep, another example of another Republican candidate doing well. How do Journal readers know? Because a Republican poll says so.
I'm not suggesting that lots of Democratic candidates aren't in trouble this fall. But should the Journal really be touting Republican polls to make that point?
The answer would be several...in the complete article.
The article was titled "Outlook Dimming for Democrats" and they referenced The Cook Political Report...A daily Gallup tracking poll...the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll...along with the republican polling cited by Boehlert.
There was nothing wrong with using republican polling data as long as it was clearly identified...which it was.
Too busy with his partisan nitpicking...Boehlert overlooked the one telling argument against using the republican poll...it's 5.7% margin of error...rendering it pretty useless.
The article said
But in a reflection of his party's fortunes nationwide, Mr. Marshall's prospects have dimmed of late. The three-term congressman now faces an energized foe and the focus of the national Republican Party in a race that polls indicate is increasingly tight.
But there weren't POLLS that told that them. There was ONE poll, and it was a Republican poll.
MMFA didn't say that there weren't multiple polls IN THE WHOLE ARTICLE, doofus! The issue is that they used GOP Polls as their ONLY source to make a couple of points!
This was not rocket science, weasel.
I really wish MMFA would do fewer Beck,Limbaugh and other hopelessly truth challenged commentators, and try to point out the more mainstream misinformation such as this WSJ article.