"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Media's assessment of likability doesn't match voters'
Yet again, the political media is obsessed with the question of whether the Democratic presidential nominee is "likable" and whether he can "connect" with "regular people." We go through this every four years. It's a remarkably bad way for journalists to spend their -- and our -- time, but old habits die hard, especially when the alternative is doing some actual reporting.
snip//
But voters don't need to be told who they like. They can decide that for themselves. They don't need to be told who "connects" with them or does not -- they will feel a connection, or they won't. The pundit class' insistence on talking endlessly about candidates' purported "likability" and ability to "relate" to "regular Americans" is, at best, a waste of time, and the ultimate in pointless horserace journalism. And at worst, it introduces an observer effect, where the view promoted by the media -- the purported observers and chroniclers -- that a candidate has a likability problem with the public becomes inseparable in the public's mind from the candidate's inherent "likability." Not to mention that, if the media talk enough about "likability," the public absorbs the idea that that is a key criterion in judging a candidate's qualifications. In other words, the public hears enough from the media that a candidate is not considered likable by the public, and the public itself begins to view the candidate as less likable.
And then there's the fact that the pundit crowd doesn't have the foggiest idea what they are talking about. They sit around their insular little echo chamber in Washington and New York, prattling on about people in Michigan and Pennsylvania being incapable of liking a candidate who doesn't bowl well or who drinks green tea. And, incredibly, they tell us the candidate is an elitist, even as they make elitist assumptions about the voters.
Needless to say, they're wrong. A lot. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to spot the clues that the pundit class obsession with Barack Obama's purported inability to connect with regular people is misplaced. He is, after all, consistently running ahead of John McCain in the polls. And he did just raise $52 million in one month, with an average contribution of $68. That's a hell of a lot of support from regular people for someone who is supposed to have trouble connecting with regular people.
If the fact that Barack Obama is winning is insufficient proof for the media that he can relate to "regular people" well enough to win, the media might want to take a few moments to browse the public polling results posted at PollingReport.com.
While the pundits sit around insisting that Barack Obama has trouble relating to people, people keep telling pollsters the opposite. Obama does better than McCain on questions about which candidate "understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives" and "understands the concerns of people like myself." In many cases, he does significantly better -- 25 points better in a USA Today/Gallup poll on the question of which candidate understands problems Americans face, 18 points better on a similar question in an ABC/Washington Post poll, and 22 points better on the question of which candidate "cares about the needs of people like you" in a USA Today/Gallup poll. A Time poll asked which candidate is the "most likable" -- Obama bettered McCain 58 percent to 23 percent. USA Today/Gallup found more people say Obama shares their values; ABC/Washington Post found more people say Obama "represents" their "own personal values." Based on those poll results, if either candidate is having trouble connecting with people, it is clearly John McCain.
more...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807180008?f=h_latest
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
