This morning The Drudge Report, busy hyping a possible McCain comeback storyline, linked to at least three related headlines:
Which one of those thee does not belong? The Gallup headline, because it's updated daily poll shows Obama back up by ten.
So Drudge simply took down that headline and left up the other two, as the site continues to press the "comeback" theme.
Unhitches its wagon from the GOP campaign.
Gawker takes a look at the scurrying pundits.
Headline: "Polls: Presidential race tightening between Barack Obama and John McCain"
The actual lead of article:
Barack Obama remains the clear front-runner in the race for the White House. The latest Gallup Poll daily tracking report revealed registered voters nationwide prefer Obama over McCain, 51% 41%, a narrowing of Obama's lead. Last week, the Democratic nominee led by double digits for three consecutive days.
Readers may be getting whiplash trying to follow the advice the Times columnist is offering the McCain campaign. As Glenn Greenwald wrote, last week Kristol was telling Republicans to "take the gloves off" and really go after Barack Obama.
The campaign did and, according to the polling data, it flopped. So McCain showed up on Fox News yesterday and walloped the McCain campaign for...taking off the gloves.
Today is his Times column, Kristol announces the McCain campaign is a disaster and that the candidate should be running as a "cheerful" leader, which of course, is pretty much the opposite of what Kristol advised seven days ago.
Appearing on CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday, the cabler's Candy Crowley was asked about the lack of substance in so much of the campaign coverage to date. She responded:
Well, as you know, these are [media] enterprises that have to make money, both papers and networks. They are catering to their customers and what they think their customers are going to read and/or see to a certain extent.
Really? News consumers don't want to bothered with substance which is why editors and producers don't highlight it during the campaign? Beltway insiders say they're just catering to the customers' (shallow) demands.
Fact is, Crowley's point is proven false by all kinds of polling data, none of which has ever suggested that come campaign season news consumers love to read about polling and tactics and gaffes. Journalists do. But voters do not.
From the New York Times' public editor on Sunday:
The public has told the media what it wants. Early this year, roughly three-quarters of voters of all political persuasions surveyed by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press said they wanted more coverage of the candidates' stands on issues. For the most part, they were disappointed, and their satisfaction with the news media has declined, according to Pew. In February, 55 percent said the election coverage was good or excellent. By June, 54 percent said it was fair or poor.
Nate Silver at Fivethirtyeight.com notes that Matt Drudge is hyping the smallest of poll upticks for John McCain and suggests Drudge is "priming a McCain reboot narrative":
Something is a little bit funny when Matt Drudge is treating 1-2 point gains for McCain in the Rasmussen and Zogby tracking polls as "BREAKING" news. Naturally, Drudge ignores other results like the just-released ABC/WaPo poll that show Obama continuing to gain ground.
Drudge has a nose for news, and he knows that a one-point gain in a tracking poll is not news -- unless someone desperately wants it to be.
Drudge's headline, under a picture of a smiling McCain, is "READY FOR COME BACK?" That headline links to a Politico article by Mike Allen headlined "Struggling McCain debuts comeback speech."
Which seems as good a time as any to look back at Howard Fineman's admission that the news media "want[ed] a race" in 2000, and was unwilling to allow the last weeks of the campaign to consist of Al Gore's "triumphant march to the presidency."
Here's a September 21, 2000 exchange between Brian Williams and Howard Fineman:
HOWARD FINEMAN: The media pendulum swings, as you were pointing out before, Brian. Bill Clinton can resurface in this campaign in a way that might not necessarily help Al Gore. And Al Gore himself has a tendency to begin - when he's ahead especially I think - talking down to the country like he's the kindergarten teacher talking to the class. I think all those factors are at play right now as Bush has really had probably the best week he's had since his convention speech. And Gore has had his worst.
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Howard, I don't know of any kind of conspiratorial trilateral commission-like council meetings in the news media. But you bring up an interesting point. And boy, it does seem true over the years that the news media almost reserve the right to build up and tear down and change their minds and like an underdog. What's that about?
HOWARD FINEMAN: Well, what it's about is the relentless search for news and the relentless search for friction in the story. I don't think the media was going to allow just by its nature the next seven weeks and the last seven or eight weeks of the campaign to be all about Al Gore's relentless triumphant march to the presidency.
We want a race I suppose. If we have a bias of any kind, it's that we like to see a contest, and we like to see it down the end if we can. And I think that's partly the psychology at play here.
UPDATE: A reader points out that New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney made a similar statement in today's paper:
Campaigns have rhythms, and inevitably swing back and forth for all kinds of reasons, including mistakes by candidates (think Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants) and the news media's desire for a competitive race and tendency to find the "underdog is surging" story line irresistible. The pendulum theory is certainly one that Republicans are grabbing onto these days.
Steve Benen points out that three of the Sunday shows completely ignored the Palin/Troopergate report:
On Friday, Palin was found to have violated the public trust in an abuse of power scandal. On Saturday, it was on the front page of the major dailies. And on Sunday morning, NBC's "Meet the Press," ABC's "This Week," and CNN's "Late Edition" ignored the story altogether, despite lengthy discussions about recent political events, as if a major scandal involving a candidate for national office isn't particularly interesting. I'll simply never understand this.
His weekend program is awash in misinformation. Rachel Sklar takes a closer look at the conspiracy theories and erroneous claims that Huckabee highlighted. She writes:
Did you know that the recent financial crisis could actually be the result of economic terrorism? Or that Congress took off after the bailout vote to get an early jump on Christmas shopping? Or that the Chinese might be drilling off the coast of Florida right now?
That's what the Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt concluded in his column today, although he was more polite. He said the Times' campaign coverage has been bogged down in "horse race, political tactics, polls and the like."
In other words, trivia.
Clark's assistant counted up the number of articles the Times has published regarding the campaign since late August. The findings [emphasis added]:
Through Friday, of 270 news articles published in The Times about the election since the national tickets were formed in late August, only 29, or a little over 10 percent, were primarily about policy substance. And that is a generous tally that includes some very brief items.
My guess is if Hoyt were not being "generous," the tally would be closer to five percent. Or, 95 percent of the mighty New York Times general election coverage has been pretty much substance-free.
This, of course, after numerous polls have shown American news consumers are absolutely desperate for substance in the campaign coverage. It's their number one request of the campaign press. But the Beltway press couldn't care less because the coverage they produce is not aimed at voters, it's aimed at other journalists.
Two quick points about the Hoyt tally. If he had included Times opinion columns in that mix of campaign coverage, my guess is the percentage of subtance would have plummeted even lower.
Second, that tally only covered the general election. I don't have an assistant to count articles, but that if I did and the assistant counted up campaign articles published in the Times since Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton kicked off the campaign season in early 2007, my very conservative hunch is the total would hover around 1,000 articles, of which probably 900+ would be listed as substance-free.
But fear not Times readers! Hoyt reports that editors claim they're going to address all that (annoying) substance stuff between now and Election Day.
A couple weeks ago we noted the mash note the Times' media columnist typed up for Couric. It was about how she seemed to be rebounding during the presidential campaign; how she had her swagger back. We thought it was odd to so lavishly toast an anchor who, despite her $15 million pay day, was still languishing in last place in the ratings. Talk about setting a low bar for success.
Well, on Saturday, the Times returned for another Couric mash note. It's about how she seems to be rebounding during the presidential campaign; she has her swagger back. (Thanks to Palin-related YouTube clips.)
We still think it's odd to so lavishly toast an anchor who, despite her $15 million pay, is still languishing in last place in the ratings. Talk about setting a low bar for success.