Finding the bright side in all-time low approval rate: Couric asked if White House was "breathing a sigh of relief" because Bush's rating fell only one point
SUMMARY: NBC Today host Katie Couric asked Tim Russert if "in a strange way, the White House is breathing a sigh of relief" because President Bush's approval rating in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was "down just one point." But as a preceding segment on the show pointed out, Bush's new approval rating of 36 percent is his lowest ever recorded in that poll.
On the April 27 broadcast of NBC's Today, host Katie Couric asked NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert if "in a strange way, the White House is breathing a sigh of relief" because President Bush's approval rating in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was "down just one point." But as NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell had noted in the preceding segment, Bush's new approval rating of 36 percent is his lowest ever recorded in that poll, and other recent polls also show Bush's approval at an all-time low. For instance, an April 18-19 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll and an April 21-23 CNN poll recorded Bush's approval rating at 33 percent and 32 percent, respectively -- his lowest ratings ever recorded by those polls.
Although Russert disagreed with Couric's suggestion that the Bush White House might be "breathing a sigh of relief" given the new poll numbers, neither he nor Couric noted that Bush's new approval rating in the April 21-24 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was at an all-time low.
From the April 27 broadcast of NBC's Today:
O'DONNELL: Another low. That's a phrase you've heard before, when you consider this poll and others. It's really been a pattern, a slow decline. Bit by bit, digit by digit. And the White House has had trouble because they have not been able to shore up those numbers.
As the president honored teachers of the year at the White House, a new test result from the public on the president's leadership. A new poll, another new low. Mr. Bush's approval rating down a notch to 36 percent.
[...]
COURIC: Let's start with the poll numbers, Tim. This has been -- no doubt about it -- a rough patch for the administration. His -- President Bush's approval rating is down just one point. Do you think in a strange way, the White House is breathing a sigh of relief?
RUSSERT: No. They understand, Katie, that they have to start rebounding, and rebounding quickly. When you look inside these numbers, Katie, the mood of the country is so unsettled. Two out of three Americans say we're simply on the wrong track. The president has to be -- address that, starting with the high prices of gasoline. And that's why you saw his rhetoric change rather dramatically this week.
Couric is a shameless whore. Then again, if 10s of millions of dollars were thrown my way... would I be too?
There might be some shame buried down deep somewhere.
Yeah...buried under all those hundreds.
After seeing her interview Michael Moore a few years ago I never watched Couric again. She was rude and didn't have a firm grasp of subject matter she was dealing with.
The fact she was chosen over more qualified people to anchor CBS is yet another indicator of how low mainstream media has succombed to the American Idolization of tv news.
Good thing Tim was there was there to keep it real. LOL.
I don't think most conservatives would say Katie is "one of us", but she seems to be lowering the expectation bar even further. Well, in November she can ask whomever is willing to come on from the routed GOP whether or not it is a relief that the GOP only lost (insert number here) number of seats!
I hope you're right... my anger grows by the day. I hope the rest of the country is listening and feeling the same.
Wow. I can't wait for Katie to start interviewing injured Iraqi war vets who lose limbs to IED's.
"Look on the bright side, Lt., at least you have your other arm. "
It's ok we know you are only as deep as a birdbath and you love finding the silver lining in anything negative about Bush.
Money makes it so easy to look in the mirror.
unintentionally, Couric made the White House look pretty stupid that they are concerned about one point whereas the ratings have never been lower for a president. Oh yae, I forgot: its probably the left-liberal media not reporting the actual news, right!
do some math? Every poll has a margin of error - as a general observation, I would say between 3% and 5%. Any movement within the margin of error is by definition meaningless. There is absolutely no point in her mentioning a 1% change - up or down...the results are static.
What a dingbat, million$ or no.
That is not exactly true. Yes, Bush only went down 1% in the most recent poll, well within the margin of error. However, that does not make it meaningless. Here is a thought experiment for you: Candidate X is at 50% in the polls with a margin of error of +/- 3%. In the next poll he is at 49% (the margin of error, we will hold constant at +/- 3). Within the margin of error, and by your standards meaningless. Now, over the next ten polls Candidate X goes down in the poll by 1% in each poll. Each time within the margin of error, and by your standards meaningless. Yet, our Candidate X now has poll numbers of 39% (+/-3), and yet by your standards there was never a meaningful movement in the polls, all the change occurred within the marign of error. You see, even a 1% drop may be meaningful. Given the distribution over time it can be quite significant. So, by definition a drop of 1% is not "meaningless."
In the MM4A article there was no discussion of a poll drop over time - the essence of your arguement. Ms. Curic was talking about a one-time drop of 1%.
Meaningless.
If she said it has dropped for 4 straight weeks and the total movement exceeded the margin of error then, of course, you would be correct. But that is not the set of facts here.
Simply because someone can quote a precise number doesn't make it meaningful. And the simple fact is that a 1% movement - up or down - is going to be within the margin of error and not only meaningless in and of itself but hardly enough to establish any trend.
By definition "movement" within the margin of error isn't really movement at all - it is too small to be measured.
Does everyone in government and media spin everything all the time?
This bit of wishful thinking reminds me of the late October day back in 2000 when the media FINALLY thought to look at Bush' driving records in Maine.
Some local reporter discovered that Bush had been busted for drinking while intoxicated. Karen Hughes gave an emergency spin job and said that Bush "wasn't stopped for driving too fast -- he was stopped for driving too slow." Of course he was. That was the last I heard of the story.
President Bush's rhetoric changed "dramatically" this week? What exactly did he say that was so "dramatic?" He mused that maybe the oil industry didn't need those last tax breaks and he manipulated the Strategic Reserve just as he criticised Bill Clinton for doing. Nothing too dramatic there. If you look at major newspaper editorials, they are critical of the lack of leadership shown by Bush on this topic. At least some in the media aren't as easily impressed at Russert.
by finding the silver lining buried ever-so-deeply in Bush's latest Nixon-esque approval rating, she got out the latest White House Rove talking point;
in addition, she continued to warm up for her soon coming role as White House MSM outlet/apologist in the CBS anchor's chair.
Fox News actually puts Bush at 33%!!
I love the look on Russert's face in the still you chose. Ironically, that's the exact expression my face takes on when I watch Katie Couric.
She did precede her question with the phrase "in a strange way". We are being too harsh on her. She acknowledges that it would be strange for the White House to consider a new low a relief. Couric should be more aggresive and assertive against thiese bandits who control our government, but her comments, although soft, were not ill-intentioned.
Media "bubbleheads" like Couric and all the other people who sit behind the desk and "present" the news have no business slipping in their "take" on the issue discussed. Let that for the experts and pundits; it's what they get paid for. Couric and her ilk get paid to tell me the facts, and nothing but the facts. They should keep their opinions to themselves, unless they preface a comment with, "Now, my opinion is..."
Where are the Murrows and Cronkites today? Only on PBS, at the Newshour with Jim Lehrer.
A recent FOX Poll said that Bush was at 33%. Did Bush go up?
when the segement is introduced by someone who calls the poll number "a new low" for the president, is this item really so biased? The gestalt of the segment, to me, is that Bush has never been lower and that everyone, including the White House, realizes there are real problems. If I were Rove (eek, scary thought), I don't think I'd be thrilled with NBC's spin on this poll.