PEJ summary selectively cited poll to suggest Americans are uninterested in U.S. attorney story
SUMMARY: In the summary of its March 18-23 News Coverage
Index, the Project for Excellence in Journalism selectively cited a Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press poll to assert that the American
public is not that interested in the U.S. attorney scandal. It did not note
that the same Pew poll found that 19 percent of respondents said they were
following "[q]uestions about how the White House and Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales were involved in the firing of eight federal prosecutors"
"very closely," while 24 percent said they were following it
"fairly closely."
In the summary of its March 18-23 News Coverage Index, the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ), which listed the News Coverage Index as its March 27 "Lead," selectively cited a March 16-19 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press to support the assertion that "the public has yet to evince great enthusiasm" for the story of the Bush administration's firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Additionally, PEJ suggested -- citing no evidence -- that this purported lack of interest was the product of a "pox on everybody's house" view that "many people" have about investigations into the firing of the attorneys.
PEJ's summary cited only one question from the Pew poll, concerning which news story respondents "followed most closely" during the week of March 12, to support the assertion that "the public has yet to evince great enthusiasm" for the attorney story. PEJ contrasted the percentage "of the public [that] said the U.S. attorney story was the one they followed most closely" -- "only 8%" -- with the percentage of the "overall newshole" the U.S. attorney story filled according to PEJ's index -- 16 percent. However, PEJ did not note that the same Pew poll also found that 19 percent of respondents said they were following "[q]uestions about how the White House and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were involved in the firing of eight federal prosecutors" "very closely," while 24 percent said they were following it "fairly closely." In the summary of its poll's findings, Pew included a table (below) in which it compared public interest in 15 "Washington scandals past and present." According to its findings, the "firing of federal prosecutors" was the seventh in a list of scandals "followed very closely" involving senior government officials:
PEJ asserted -- without evidence -- that "many people may ... share the view" of CNN host Lou Dobbs, citing Dobbs' March 22 CNN.com commentary, in which he wrote: "And this is what passes for a big-time, dramatic, historical constitutional crisis in 21st century America? ... You've got to be kidding. ... The White House is behaving with utter contempt for Congress and Congress is acting without respect or regard for this president. Could it be that, at long last, they're both right?" The cited March 16-19 Pew poll did not include any questions concerning whether Americans favored the Democrats, Republicans, Congress, or the president on the issue of the firings or the investigation. The more recent March 21-25 Pew poll also did not include such a question or one addressing how closely respondents were following the attorney story.
On March 26, USA Today released a March 23-25 poll in which 72 percent of respondents said that "Congress should ... investigate the involvement of White House officials in this matter" and 68 percent of respondents said the White House should "answer all questions" rather than invoke "executive privilege." In the same poll, 59 percent of respondents said that the "congressional Democrats" were "investigating these dismissals ... mostly because they want to gain political advantage," but 48 percent of respondents said "Democrats in Congress" were spending the "right amount" or "not... enough" time on the "matter" compared with 40 percent of respondents who said the Democrats were spending "too much" time.
According to its website, PEJ, which joined the Pew Research Center in June 2006, is "a research organization that specializes in using empirical methods to evaluate and study the performance of the press." The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press is also part of the Pew Research Center.
From PEJ's summary, "The Scent of Scandal Makes Gonzales the Big Story":
Yet, as NPR noted, the story has thus far exposed something of a disconnect between news producer and news consumer. While journalists appear fascinated by this battle between Congress and the White House, the public has yet to evince great enthusiasm for it.
According to a News Interest Index survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, only 8% of the public said the U.S. attorneys story was the one they followed most closely in the week of March 12. (That week it led all news coverage at 16%.) And preliminary results from last week indicate that citizen interest in the subject is up only marginally, despite the even higher level of media coverage.
For journalists and Washington-watchers, there was plenty of drama in the Justice Department scandal last week. Gonzales battled to keep his job, Bush voiced support for him, and Congress authorized subpoenas to try and force the public testimony of former White House counsel Harriet Miers and top aide Karl Rove. Stories spoke of a Constitutional showdown between the legislative and executive branches -- a term loaded with historical resonance.
Liberal MSNBC "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann opened his March 22 show by declaring there is "nothing more dangerous to a presidency perhaps than a scandal evoking Watergate and executive privilege and attorneys general in trouble." In case anyone missed the point, Olbermann's interview subject that night was none other than Richard Nixon White House Counsel John Dean, now a Bush critic.
Maybe, if the public ever comes to view what Olbermann calls "Gonzales-gate" as sharing some kind of parallel to Watergate, interest may well rise. But many people may instead share the view of CNN's Lou Dobbs who, in a commentary posted on CNN.com, put a pox on everybody's house.
"And this is what passes for a big-time, dramatic, historical constitutional crisis in 21st century America?" Dobbs wrote. "You've got to be kidding...The White House is behaving with utter contempt for Congress and Congress is acting without respect or regard for this president. Could it be that, at long last, they're both right?"
The overall point of the article was to show the disconnect between the amount of coverage the U.S. Attorney firings are receiving in the media, and the public's interest in it. The article summarizes and shows that disconnect very well.
This is, IMO, an illustration of the difference between being contrarian and merely contrary. You're not pointing out any flaw in the logic of the post's premise, that a scandal that has already cracked the top 10 in Pew's own ranking is in fact something the public is interested in.
You just disagree without giving any reason for your disagreement. That's contrary, in my humble opinion.
Val, Call it whatever you like.......the point, and the contrary position, is that this thread is cherry picking one mention in the article of a poll, when the jist of the article is absolutely unbiased and fair. There is a disconnect between the amount of coverage the media is giving this story, and the public's appetite for it.
but 72% told usa today that congress should investigate the matter. looks like there's a little more enthusiasm for the story than you're asserting.
72% of the country, or 72% of the respondents?
more game playing? of course, it's of the respondents. but so is the pew poll. what's your point?
tommy's only point in any thread is to fill it with such illogic, nonsense and anger that people will stop reading. he only argues, never debates.
sometimes it's a give em enough rope kind of thing. like here. he argues one thing about the "public" based on one poll, but says you can't conclude anything from another poll because it only represents "respondents". totally contradicting himself.
In other words, Tommy is not interested at all in the fact that it seems that the Average American is not very interested in this issue as compared to some other issues.
Move along, Boyos, nothing to see here.
Tommy, the story is very important however. I am sure the American public would rather watch Anna Nicole or hear about American Idol, but times are very important for this story not to be ignored.
Doris, You misunderstood - I didn't say the story was unimportant - it is not. What I said was apparently the public's interest in it is minimal, as evidenced by the poll, and the article that referenced the poll.
"What I said was apparently the public's interest in it is minimal"
Compared to what? Other political issues, or American Idol?
Except that the poll says just the opposite, thereby invalidating the central thesis of the article. "Nothing to see here, folks" is the official GOP spin on the scandal, hence this article was - intentionally or unintentionally - furthering conservative misinformation.
Thus, this post is relevant, informative, and appropriate.
QED.
The ones that are showing disconnect are the mmfa staff. Despite massive coverage...the issue has not gathered momentum...to the chagrin of mmfa.
- Attorney Firings Spur Limited Public Interest - despite Extensive News Coverage - Pew Research
The PEJ didn't selectively site anything...they took the same position as the Pew researchers. Just another thread...with increasing frequency...of political activism and little to do with conservative misinformation.
Just wondering...did Brian Levy...without supervision dream up this topic or was it assigned by Brock...in either case...comical and puny.
The idea that the public is not interested is just stupid. Really, really stupid. I caught a moment of BOR spewing the 8% #. How convenient for him. He didn't even cite where the # came from. You would only have to go online to know people are interested. It is the conversation here where I live. The country has gone to hell and no one is interested? It just infuriates me.
Your beef is with the Pew Research Center...they're the ones siting the evidence that the public is not interested...not O'Reilly.
but if the public is "not interested" as o'reilly says why does 72% of the public want congress to investigate? sounds like an interest to me.
OK, now you're just confusing more than just yourself.......up above, you say it's 72% of the respondents, here you say is 72% of the public?
Are you just game-playing again?
no you're the game player again. the poll represents an average of the public. again, if you're going to cite the pew poll as accurate, then you're accepting polls as representative of what the public thinks.
you at 242: "the public's interest in it is minimal as evidenced by the ......poll" you accept one but not the other?
The respondents are a sample of the public. You're just being thick to obfuscate now.
One poll is measuring the public's interest, the other is asking a specific question.........totally different measurements. Surely, you see it.
surely, that was not the point. the point is you're trying to say one poll represents the public and the other doesn't.
Thanks. Beat me to it. It really is like beating up on the Washington Generals.
If the "specific question" is whether the public thinks the firing of USAs should be investigated, doesn't that sort of suggest interest?
I quit arguing with Tommie a while back, when I finally figured out that he has 2 more years before he graduates from High School. It has always been like shooting fish in a dixie cup. He offers only ridicule of those with whom he disagrees and MMFA. He adds nothing to the debate except; 'Where's the misinformation?
I agree. I have lost interest in "debating" tommy as well (although, I can't help myself at times). It seems he digs his heels in too early in the debates these days. Tommy becomes too entrenched and inflexible. It doesn't usually make for a very interesting argument.
Even when he is right, he needlessly insults people further needlessly polarizing the issues. I think more people would agree with tommy if he wasn't so abrasive. Bruce and Jeter are the best conservatives IMO at making a valid point without making enemies.
True, I would add Ben, he however posts infrequently
Yeah, Tommy is getting boring. All he has are the same old canned platitudes. I actually enjoy some of the Weiner fans, though. Fresh voices.
My beef is with BOR and any supposed journalist who blithely throws at a poll number and does not cite it or give it context. It is as lazy as Couric saying, "some people" Who says? What is the number? What is the context?
Bill's attitude was, "why am I even bothering having you (guest) on? Only eight percent of the country cares... " What crappy journalism. Even if the number is that... he could have said this is important because.... Give the the PEW site out and let people think for themselves if you are to DAMN LAZY to give the all the information. He should not have bothered and only did, as far as I see it, to make a point of the story being useless in his wise and esteemed journalistic opinion. O>
43% follow it closely or very closely. and that was before the more recent revelations.
It points out the circular degeneration of our media as well. Issues that may be important are sidelined by a missing white girl or a dead bimbo. The average person ends up following a meaningless story as a result of the media's saturation with that non-story.When asked about the more important story, the person responds that they may not be following it very closely, which the media can report as a lack of interest in the story.
I still think it is a little early to even compare interest in this "scandal" to other scandals in the past. Administration officials haven't even testified yet. Let's see how it turns out. If there is indeed a smoking gun, interest will increase. If nothing materializes, then it will fade away.
It is kind of silly to treat it as a horse-race, but I guess that is the kind of rotten politics and rotten reporting we are stuck with these days.
Pew included a table (below) in which it compared public interest in 15 "Washington scandals past and present." According to its findings, the "firing of federal prosecutors" was the seventh in a list of scandals "followed very closely" involving senior government officials:
Has anyone else noticed that neither Watergate nor the Clinton impeachment are on this list?
I noticed that, MoShow. First thing I thought was "where's Watergate?" Maybe they don't have relevant poll numbers for events that far back.
My first thought was "where is The Teapot Dome Scandal?".
It was very big news when I was a boy.
What's with your irrational hatred of President Harding, Worrierking?
Should I not set foot on Doheny State Beach so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities?
No, you can use the beach. Doheny was aquitted. and he sounds Irish, so he gets a pass.
Just don't get me started on Warren Harding.
Rusty,
You mean there was a time when there weren't polls?
The "7th on the list" bit reminded me of a complaint by Consumer Reports. They do not allow manufacturers to use their results in ads. One manufacturer (I think of vacuum cleaners) claimed in an ad that their product "topped the Consumer Reports list". True, but there was a probem besides quoting CR without permission: The "list" was alphabetical.
Final note for students out there: I revised my original comment and the result became grammatically incorrect: It should be neither...IS, not neither....ARE
Of course there have always been polls, but maybe during Watergate nobody took a poll asking people whether they were closely following the story. So PEJ would have no number to put on the list for Watergate.
it goes back to the 80's, so i think it's just a comparison of a few different scandals. the page scandal is not on there for instance. and the interest in the clinton impeachment would be very high.
Bill's getting good press in Ireland these days, for work he did arround 1998, getting Chatholic and Protestants together. Think he might have something positive to do in Iraq. Has anyone asked him recently?
Americans would follow the story more closely if they could phone in their votes about it to Ryan Seacrest, or if it featured explosions and naked breasts.
Rusty, I think there are a lot of boobs involved in this mess
That was funky cold, Medina!
A lot of real dicks are involved as well.
One compelling argument against such use of the 8% number, is that in a rational society (which I by no means wish to imply we are) the media must first report and cover the information, then the public assesses the impact and importance thereof. since the "scandal" in these dismissals arose purely from the agitation of the net - TPM in particular was writing most of what the WaPo and other MSM have finally been compelled to report, more than 2 months prior to the first WaPo reports - and since this one scandal has to compete against all the other Bungle/Gonzo scandals (notably, Libby and Walter Reed and the surge and the surge to support the surge and . . . ) it is not yet time to declare this matter dead. Especially when only the tip of this iceberg is now visible:
ThinkProgress
I believe it will develop that the White House - specifically Darth - engaged in a little fraud to pay off Duke Cunningham, at whose behest I do not yet know; and that true obstruction of justice underlay this purge of Lam, with some of the other victims merely thrown in for cover.
Oh, and we still do have the indictment of Wilkes and Foggo (the former CIA #3) to watch, and hear reported, if the office is not stripped of resources or otherwise prevented from pursuing prosecution.
Maybe the net will also force yet another Gonzo (related) scandal into the media: the Texas Youth Commission - a hotbed of felons and pederasts - was protected by the DOJ in the runup to the recent midterms. If not Gonzo personally, who there did quash the indictments already drawn up at the US Atty office?
This one also bears the stain of media "restraint" both in the period prior to, and even in the aftermath, of those mid-terms. The story is gaining momentum primarily from the persistence of the blogs.
I am one that could care less.
More caring could aid considerably in your stated quest (for the location of middle America).
IMO, taking sides on this helps to create division. .
'Tis a fine argument for division: between those who believe in the rule of law, versus those who believe the King IS the law.
Between those engaged in enlightened self-interest, and those whose head is beneath several feet of dirty sand.
Between those concerned about the future of this democratic republic, and those interested only in "what's fer dinner - and where is my beer?"
I guess a guy has to have a purpose in life. No one said it had to be a good one or even make sense
You could care less, meaning that you do care, or you could not care less, meaning that you do not care at all?
I am diong my best not to follow the story. So many other damn things way more important, imo.
Like what?
Doing his/her best not to follow the story ! Do you realize how time consuming that is?
How can you judge the importance of something you are not following?
There is an illogic here when Dobbs or others feel that because the public doesn't show a high interest in the Gonzales scandal then the scandal is not worth prursuing.
That would be like saying because the public don't show a high interest in each and every case under investigation then each and every case under investigation must not be worth pursuing.
Does anything think that if Dobbs goes out to the parking lot and sees someone slashing his tires that he isn't going to report it to the police because the public may not be interested in his petty little problem.
This poll of the people's interest is for marketing purposes only; it bears no relation to the innocent or guilt of the parties being investigated.
For those who DO care about this mess, and want to download and read the DOJ documents to prepare for Sampson's assuredly full and truthful testimony, here is a link to PDFs.
DOJ Document Dump
With my slow dial up connection I took a guess at which file to download. I got lucky. It's the one where it stated that Rove had no connection with Griffin being picked to replace Cummins.
Two interesting news tidbits popped up. One of which is The Justice Department said it provided inaccurate information to members of Congress in a February letter about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. note: it's the one where it stated Rove had no hand in the hiring of Griffin.
The other interesting news is that Sampson's testimony will be a play on the distinction between political and performance. Sampson will attempt to convince investigators that such distinction is artificial.
The game plan of Sampson is to claim the responses to the firings was just poorly miscommunicated by everyone; also watch for Sampson's attempt to blur the line between political and performance in his testimony. I'm sure many will run with it.
Although only partially related to the DOJ problems with oversight, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is gaining momentum in pulling back the veil on Bunglez Boyz (& Girlz) throughout the Administration:
(related) Waxman wants records
(less DOJ, but still great) GAO Chief Squirming Under Investigation
Gee, I guess this will bring us another round of polls, showing that as the population of CURRENT Repugnant scandals increases to over a dozen under investigation, no single one of those scandals is deemed "most important current scandal" by more that 10% of the electorate?
For those who wish to know which file contains the letter stating that Rove had no hand in this here is the link Thanks to conleytgwinn:
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/PDFS/OLA1-43.pdf
For those who wish to read the news article where the Justice Department says letter on firings inaccurate here is the link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJ5fL1iQ0f7U&refer=home
The Feb. 23 letter to Democratic lawmakers discussed the appointment of Timothy Griffin, a former aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove, to a U.S. attorney position in Arkansas. The letter said Rove had no role in the decision to appoint Griffin and that nobody ``inside or outside of the administration'' lobbied for Griffin's appointment.
Thanks for the follow-up! I guess I had forgotten how depressing it can be to find 6MB or so, of documents to be downloaded, at dial-up speeds (although I was always stubborn enough to get the PDFs anyway). Consequently, I did not provide guidance, but started right away to reading, piecing together, trying to make sense of, this mass of mess. Glad that you DID provide that guidance!
Still hopeful the Dole-Shalala Commission will weigh in with something prior to the expiration of Bungle's term - just not holding my breath. There is unfortunately either a gracious pause in the media onslaught into this problem, to allow that commission to work without sensationalizing the (serious) issues of inadequate Veteran Healthcare, or an assumption by that (Corporate) Media that the handful of resignations in the wake of Walter Reed's cockroach problem are the proper balance between audience interest and Corporate/Administration apathy.
In the meantime, diligent web-watching discloses only this, from Newsweek, as representative of journalistic investigative exertion - more accurately, kindofa "human interest" aspect of the ignored, undisclosed, unaddressed problems endemic to that whole VA complex of penury and indifference.
Memo to Lou Dobbs:
We all are faced now with mandated reduction of our respect for you: you have betrayed yourself to be an ally of the President, simply by opposing those who oppose him. And that sucks! Faced with this arrogant braindead "Decider", Bungle, how would you, Mr. Dobbs, in Congress, react? Why, if you had the guts to act at all, and the brains to do so with design, you would do exactly as the Congress is doing - investigate, expose, and, ultimately, time permitting, depose.
Of course, *I* admit to indulging in fantasy, there, for your petulent condemnation of Congress quickly dispels any hope that you have either the guts or the brains for the least of those undertakings.
/signed - someone who formerly accepted your Catherine Crier reports on election theft (in Ohio and elsewhere) as evidence that you might someday grow to become worthwhile.