Support for the U.S. role in the war in Afghanistan jumped 9 points following Obama's West Point speech last week, according to a new Quinnipiac Univ. poll. It will be interesting to see what kind of media play that gets, considering how lots of pundits panned Obama's address, and how the press this year has shown an overwhelming interest in Obama polling data when the numbers go down for Obama.
UPDATED: An even more recent Quinnipiac survey puts Obama's approval rating at 46 percent, while a new Bloomberg News poll puts that number at 54 percent. Which result do you think is getting more media attention?
UPDATED: This is kind of priceless. Time's Mark Halperin does highlight the Bloomberg poll, but not the good news for Obama. Instead, here's the news Halperin found in the poll that showed Obama with a robust job approval rating:
Poll: Majority See Nation on Wrong Track: Despite reporting 54% approval for Obama, new Bloomberg survey shows 59% think country is heading in the wrong direction.
So, if you're following at home, the Quinnipiac poll that showed Obama's Afghanistan policy receiving a spike in support is of little interest to the press. But the Quinnipiac poll that shows Obama's approval rating falling is of interest. Meanwhile, the Bloomberg poll showing Obama's approval rating remaining strong is of little interest to the press. But the portion of the same Bloomberg poll showing bad "wrong track" numbers is of interest.
In other words, good news is no news.
On the extraordinarily unlikely chance that anyone out there takes Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard seriously, his latest offering should put an end to that:
Later, Sheppard declared Chetry's mention of a snowstorm "absolutely delicious."
Whenever you see someone suggesting that a December snowstorm in New England undermines the scientific consensus behind global warming, you know one of two things is true: Either they are a fool, or they think you are.
It's basically the equivalent of saying "The economy is fine: Bill Gates still has a lot of money." And yet it is one of the central talking points of the right-wing media's assault on global warming science.
From the December 8 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show:
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Gretchen Carlson Dumbs Down|
There are many, many problems with the product NewsBusters turns out every day -- awful writing, specious arguments, and outright falsehoods, just to name a few. Among the most glaring, however, is their seemingly deliberate effort to be as inconsistent and hypocritical as possible.
Yesterday, NewsBuster Lachlan Markay attacked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs for saying of Gallup's daily presidential tracking poll trendline: "I'm sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that. I don't put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend." Markay responded:
Saying the Fox News Channel was not a real news organization was bad enough. But comparing a reputable polling organization to a 6-year-old child with a crayon? That is quite a stretch. This childish accusation--either of incompetence or dishonesty, Gibbs did not make clear which--demonstrates the White House's knee-jerk instincts when confronted with potentially damaging news. The administration, like many on the left, almost seems to feel entitled to news that portrays it in a positive light and advances its agenda.
And here's where the rank hypocrisy comes in. Anyone who is at all familiar with NewsBusters knows that when they are confronted with polling data they don't like, their standard response is to attack the pollster as liberally biased and accuse pollsters of cooking their numbers. Back in October, Tim Graham claimed an ABC News/Washington Post poll "stuff[ed] its poll sample with a few extra Democrats" to get the result they wanted. In June, Noel Sheppard accused the New York Times and CBS News of helping President Obama's health care initiative along "by creating a new poll on the subject that WAY oversampled people who voted for Obama." In April, Graham wrote of a New York Times poll: "Are the liberals cooking the party-ID books again for these polls? Yep." The examples go on and on and on and on.
More to the point, NewsBusters has accused Gallup -- the "reputable polling organization" whose honor Markay defended -- of cooking their numbers to favor Obama. In October 2008, Tom Blumer wrote of Gallup's expanded likely voter model: "Yeah, right. 86% - 9% [sic] of the 159 new 'expanded' likely voters go to Obama. How convenient. This doesn't even pass the stench test, let alone the smell test."
I don't know if NewsBusters has an editorial staff to keep track of all this, but it can't be the case that their contributors don't read their own blog. What's more likely is that they simply don't care. They'll readily sacrifice what little credibility they have just to make a lame attack on a political figure they don't like.
From a December 9 Washington Examiner editorial, headlined "Czar Obama takes aim at Congress":
Congressional liberals who failed to get their cap-and-trade scheme approved in the Senate are ecstatic about the EPA's ruling. There was a time when American liberals worried about excessive executive power; today they cheer as Barack Obama dons the robes of the imperial presidency in ways that Richard Nixon never dreamed possible. Consider, for example, the enthusiasm of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who said "the message to Congress is crystal clear: Get moving. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration is more than justified to use the EPA to impose new regulations." In other words, if Congress heeds public opposition and refuses to pass cap-and-trade, well, then Czar Obama will act on his own.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is challenging the EPA Endangerment Ruling in federal court, but Congress ought not wait on the judicial branch to declare this action unconstitutional, as it surely should if and when the Supreme Court reconsiders the issue. Congress must assert its supreme authority now by denying funds for the enforcement of this pernicious ruling and explicitly directing EPA to withdraw it. Like Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Democrats, but does that mean they must also be his servants?
Well that was fun while it lasted.
As Jeremy Schulman spelled out on CF last night, you can pretty much throw away Fox News' supposed "zero tolerance" policy for making newsroom blunders. After Fox News made a string of sloppy whoppers in recent weeks , execs claimed they were going to clean house, get back to basics, hold everyone responsible, and some people might even get fired! Because, darn it, Fox News plays home to real journalists, or so claimed the Fox News team.
But as MMA highlighted yesterday, it's all BS. Fox News was caught, yet again, making the type of mistake that would cause red faces at a community access channel. And the cabler's response? It just tried to spin it away. (Read here why the spin was almost as embarrassing as the original blunder.)
Big surprise? Hardly. Fox News simply has no track record of holding accountable employees who regularly commit all kinds of crimes against journalism. (Y'know, like its anchors.)
But perhaps even more importantly, the latest transgression highlights again how Fox News and journalism just don't mix. Because when newsroom blunders crop up, actual news organizations try to figure what went wrong and then takes steps to safeguard them from ever being repeated. But since Fox News doesn't really function as a news outlet any more (it's a purely political entity), it's no surprise that that kind of introspection does not take place. Even after the cabler touted a "zero tolerance" policy for mistakes, it still found a way to explain away its latest gaffe, rather than hold anybody accountable.
My point is, how can Fox News brass suddenly force a "zero tolerance" policy onto a newsroom staff that really doesn't do news? (i.e. It's Greek to them) And we keep seeing the proof. How else would the wrong video mysteriously be pulled from the Fox News archives and inserted into a wildly misleading Sean Hannity report about a right-wing protest? Why else would a Fox News producer treat a political rally like an in-studio audience and pump up partisan members off-camera just moment before a live "news" report?
The mistakes that routinely tumble out of Fox News are not the same kinds of mistakes that get made at the competition. They don't get made at CNN, for instance, and they don't get made at ABC News. They don't get made at those place because CNN an ABC are actual news operations. Fox News is not.
So why Fox News execs ever thought they could institute a "zero tolerance" policy remains a mystery, since there seems be a culture within Fox News where everyday staffers have decided there are no rules left; that they don't actually work for a "news" organization.
And honestly, can you blame them?
WH spokesman Robert Gibbs caused a small media ripple this week when he was asked Monday about Gallup's daily tracking poll which showed the president down three points to 47 approval rating. (On Tuesday, Obama was back up to 50 percent.)
On the company's site, Editor in Chief Frank Newport posted a response to Gibbs' mild swipe at Gallup's never-ending Obama polling data, and Newport himself raised several interesting points about the nature of polling. But this one seemed a bit off-course, as Newport oversold the significance of the daily tracking numbers:
But keeping tabs on the people's views of their elected representatives between elections is vitally important - and something in which the people of the country are demonstrably interested.
It's vitally important to know how Americans feel about Obama each and every day of the year? That seems like a stretch. (The nation seemed to manage prior to Gallup's non-stop presidential polling.)
But I thought this was even more off the mark:
Obama is set to travel to Oslo, Norway, to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The White House is probably just as interested as we are in how the American public is going to react to this event. Our tracking will give us the answer -- both in the short-term and in the long-term.
Baloney. What the Gallup numbers will do during the days when Obama travels to Norway is measure the percentage of Americans who approve of the job he's doing as president. Period. Nothing more and nothing less. The notion endorsed by Gallup--that from the extremely vague job approval questions that we can extrapolate how Americans (in this instance) view Obama's Norway trip--doesn't really make much sense. If Gallup commissioned a poll and specifically asked Americans about Norway, then sure, we'd get some insight.
But assuming that because the job approval rating question is asked when Obama is in Norway that respondents will give their answer based solely on the fact that Obama is in Norway, again, makes no sense.
And my guess is that that's the larger point Gibbs may have been trying to make on Monday, which is that the press' obsession with Obama's daily tracking numbers (an obsession, BTW, that only kicks in when the numbers inch downward) is off-base because journalists read way too many things into the generic question. Just like Frank Newport does when he claims that we'll know how Americans feel about Obama going to Norway.
Not by looking at the daily tracking poll numbers we won't.
From the December 9 Los Angeles Times article, titled, "Glenn Beck's flawed gold standard":
Radio and TV host Glenn Beck likes to talk about the potential collapse of the American economy. He also likes to talk about buying gold as a hedge against the unknown.
The proximity of those ideas, the plethora of gold ads around his Fox program and Beck's work as a paid pitchman for one gold firm have some in the media wondering whether the conservative commentator has a conflict of interest.
Since conflicts are in the eye of the beholder, Beck should consider himself lucky if the public doesn't judge him by the where-there's-smoke-there's-fire standard he uses to condemn his own adversaries.
The Washington Post has published an op-ed by Sarah Palin in which she claims that the apparently stolen Climatic Research Unit emails "reveal that leading climate 'experts' ... manipulated data to 'hide the decline' in global temperatures." This is simply false. The emails do not discuss hiding a "decline" in "global temperatures." Indeed, the Post's own news reporting directly contradicts Palin's claim. The Post needs to run a correction and explain to its readers why it allowed this nonsense to be published in the first place.
Palin is referring to a 1999 email in which CRU's Phil Jones wrote:
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
Palin claims that by "hide the decline," Jones is referring to some sort nefarious conspiracy to conceal an actual decrease in "global temperatures." But this is absurd on its face. Here's a chart of average global temperatures published in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2001 report:
Beginning in the mid-1960s, there's a pretty clear long-term warming trend. In other words, there was no "decline" in "global temperatures" for Jones to hide.
So what was Jones talking about? The Washington Post has actually explained it on its news pages. In a December 5 Post article, David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin reported that Jones "wrote a colleague that he would 'hide' a problem with data from Siberian tree rings with more accurate local air temperature measurements."
In other words, four days after two Washington Post science reporters explained that Jones was saying that he replaced problematic tree ring data with "more accurate" data from actual temperature measurements, the Post op-ed page allows Palin to claim that Jones was somehow concealing a decline in temperatures that never actually existed.
Media Matters has documented at length the distortions of Jones' 1999 email. And in a December 8 London Times op-ed, Andrew Watson, research professor at the University of East Anglia, debunked the very claim that Palin is now making:
In the one most quoted, the director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones, talks about using a "trick" to "hide the decline". At first reading, this easily translates as "deceiving [politicians, other scientists, everyone] into believing the world is warming when it is actually cooling".
But it doesn't mean that at all. Jones is talking about a line on a graph for the cover of a World Meteorological Organisation report, published in 2000, which shows the results of different attempts to reconstruct temperature over the past 1,000 years. The line represents one particular attempt, using tree-ring data for temperature. The method agrees with actual measurements before about 1960, but diverges from them after that - for reasons only partly understood, discussed in the literature.
The tree-ring measure declines, but the actual temperatures after 1960 go up. They draw the line to follow the tree-ring reconstruction up to 1960 and the measured temperature after that. The notes explain that the data are "reconstructions, along with historical and long instrumental records". Not very clear perhaps, but not much of a "trick".
The RealClimate blog, which, unlike Sarah Palin's op-ed, is written by actual climate scientists, provided a similar explanation:
Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
On November 23, Fishbowl DC published an internal Fox News memo detailing the network's new "zero tolerance" policy for errors. Today -- barely two weeks later -- Fox News attempted to explain why it wasn't going to take any action to correct the following December 4 segment in which three Fox hosts and the Fox News graphics department used a string of falsehoods to turn "59 percent" into "close to 100 percent."
Here's what happened.
This morning, Media Matters' Simon Maloy caught Fox & Friends displaying a graphic that falsely suggested that 94 percent of respondents told Rasmussen Reports that it is somewhat or very likely that "scientists falsif[ied] research to support their own theories on global warming."
As Simon explained:
What happened? Well, here's the Rasmussen poll Fox & Friends cited. They asked respondents: "In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?" According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren't sure).
Fox News' graphics department added together the "very likely" and "somewhat likely" numbers to reach 59 percent, and called that new group "somewhat likely." Then, for some reason, they threw in the 35 percent "very likely" as their own group, even though they already added that number to the "somewhat likely" percentage. Then they mashed together the "not very likely" and "not likely at all" groups, and threw the 15 percent who were unsure into the waste bin. Voila -- 120 percent.
As such, Fox News' presentation of the data made it seem as though 94 percent of Americans think it's at least "somewhat likely" that climate scientists falsify their research data.
So Media Matters sent an open letter to Fox News asking how the network would deal with the falsehood in light of its new policy of "zero tolerance for on-screen errors."
Well, Politico's Michael Calderone reports that Fox News has decided to respond to the falsehood by claiming it didn't happen:
But Lauren Petterson, executive producer of Fox & Friends, told POLITICO that she sees no error in the graphic. And for that reason, there will be no reprimand of staff under the "zero tolerance" policy.
"We were just talking about three interesting pieces of information from Rasmussen," Petterson said. "We didn't put on the screen that it added up to 100 percent."
While Petterson maintains that Fox & Friend's didn't err in displaying the information from Rasmussen, she acknowledges that the presentation wasn't perfect. "The mistake I do see is we could have been a little clearer here," she said.
Fox's position is absurd. As Calderone notes, "its understandable why a viewer would look at the numbers stacked up like this on-screen and assume that '94 percent of American's think it's at least "somewhat likely" that climate scientists falsify their research data.' "
One "viewer" who apparently "assumed" that was ... Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy. Here's how he described the Rasmussen poll while Fox was showing that graphic:
DOOCY: Let's go ahead and take a look: Did scientists falsify research to support their own theories on global warming? This is a brand new Rasmussen poll. About 60 percent of you say, "Somewhat likely." Thirty-five percent say, "Very likely." So you got 90 -- you got a lot of people right there thinking it is likely, although 26 percent say, "Not very likely."
So in purporting to explain the poll results, Doocy claimed that 60 percent of respondents answered, "Somewhat likely." This is false. Only 24 percent of respondents said that; the "about 60 percent" figure actually combines the "somewhat likely" and "very likely" respondents. Doocy then suggested that a separate group of respondents -- 35 percent -- said, "Very likely." Doocy then attempted to add those two figures together, saying, "So you got 90 -- you got a lot of people right there thinking it is likely."
But the falsehoods didn't stop there. As soon as Doocy finished misrepresenting the poll, co-hosts Gretchen Carlson and Eric Bolling explained that since the poll had been conducted before the apparent theft and disclosure of climate scientists' private emails, the percentage of people who think scientists are falsifying data might now be "substantially higher" -- perhaps "close to 100 percent":
CARLSON: In the spirit of fairness, I believe that question was asked before these emails were revealed, so that poll number may actually be different now.
BOLLING: Substantially higher?
CARLSON: It might be, yes.
BOLLING: Close to 100 percent now.
This is completely false. The right-wing media began lying about the Climatic Research Unit emails on November 20. The Rasmussen poll was conducted December 1-2. It included a question about the CRU emails. So, no, the current figure is probably not "substantially higher," and it is certainly not "close to 100 percent."
As Media Matters' Ari Rabin-Havt put it, "On Fox News, percentages don't add up to 100 and, apparently, 'zero tolerance' means unless we get caught."