For a second, I thought this referred to political reporting's reliance polls as a substitute for actual journalism

Something that hasn't yet happened probably won't matter!!

If you want a crystal clear example of how lazy journalism has become and how polls have become a crutch to allow editors avoid assigning actual journalism, check out this ‘story.’ A poll by Marist College found that 59% of people expect that tonight’s State of the Union address won’t change their mind about the direction of the country.

This is a poll asking people about what they expect that they WILL probably think about a speech that HASN’T EVEN BEEN GIVEN yet. Worse yet, they fabricated this story even though a comfortable majority said the speech WILL probably make no difference.

So a future event won’t make a difference and they contrive a ‘story’ out of this?! And media poohbahs wonder why people are less and less likely to pay for this nonsense.

Are journalists slaves to polling companies?

"At times it feels as if American politics consists largely of candidates without ideas hiring consultants without convictions to stage campaigns without content. Increasingly the result is elections without voters." –Gerald Ford

I’m a big fan of North Country Public Radio’s Brian Mann. I think he’s probably the best journalist in this area. His news stories are fair (different than neutral) as well as offering a depth and nuance pretty much unseen in this region’s journalism. But one of his weaknesses is his infatuation with the horse race of politics; this blog piece where he went on about a poll regarding the NY governor’s race is a recent example. I won’t crucify him for it because his real journalism is of such quality. But as someone who’s regularly criticized the overreliance on polls that cripples modern journalism, I wish he’d tone it down a bit.

I think journalists are infatuated by polls because they are far easier to frame than more complex (and more relevant) stories about issues. The way stories about polls are framed are remarkably similar to the way stories about sports are often framed. But ESPN's hype machine aside, most sports journalists don't pass their work off as being of epic importance.

Polls really are a a crutch of modern journalism. As I’ve said before, polls can be useful when they illuminate a story or issue. Far too often, though, they ARE the story. Polls fine as the dessert – fine in small quantities, easy to digest but with little nutritional value; instead, they are usually passed off as the main course – thus we get a malnourished civic soul.

I am convinced that this is a reason why ordinary people are tuning out of politics and why they are losing respect for journalism. Nearly all the coverage, and I mean in the state media in general not just Mann's blog, of the governor’s race is based on polls; this was exacerbated when a poll was released showing the GOP’s Carl Paladino only 6 points behind Democrat Andrew Cuomo. The small rest of the gubernatorial coverage has about Paladino’s controversial personality and emails he once sent.

I’ve seen hardly anything about the FOUR other statewide races, those for attorney general, comptroller and two US Senate seats. There was a little coverage about the Democratic attorney general primary (again mostly focused on the polls and who was 'ahead') but virtually none since.

The state is in a crisis but journalists seem to think that no one’s interested in hearing ideas about how to address the crisis and that everyone's more worried about the little parlor games of polls that ignore most of the candidates anyway.

Yes, the only people talking about issues and ideas are the smaller party candidates... this is almost always how it is. But if the media is going to blacklist those smaller party candidates and perpetuate the deceit that they don't exist, don’t they at least have a responsibility to press the major party candidates to talk about real issues, not just a candidate's crude emails or lineage?

Oh wait, I have to go. A poll shows that Paladino’s popularity has increased by 0.0441 percent since 22 minutes ago. Stop the presses! I need to write a story about this Earth-shattering development!


Update: Matt Funiciello offers his take.

Second update: Curiously, the media's infatuation with polls doesn't seem to extend to the one that shows 58% of Americans think the Republicans and Democrats so inadequate that a third party is needed. Of course, there ARE 'third parties' so this means that the majority of Americans think the media should actually cover them, like is done in the media of every other democracy.

Hobbling journalism's crutch kicked away while foreigners offer a glimpse at the Tea Party's vision

I’m no fan of the Tea Party-backed Carl Paladino but... I do take a little joy from the fact that the polls, the modern substitute for actual journalism, were spectacularly wrong.

The polls had this a neck-and-neck race between Alan Alda-look-alike Paladino and Rick Lazio in the race for the GOP nomination for governor of New York.

Paladino won by 24 points.

Though Larry Sabato, the resident political science expert used by pretty much every national media outlet, pointed out that anti-incumbent fury wasn't quite as lethal as you might think.

As he Tweeted: Final tally: 417 Sens. & Reps. renominated, 7 lost (98% won)

And speaking of the slash-and-burn approach advocated by Paladino and other self-proclaimed small government types, Canada's MacLean's magazine has a profile of what Tea Party's vision would look like. Collapsing bridges, street lights turned off, cuts to basic services... sounds like paradise!

In the land before polls...

I wonder what things were like before polling cannibalized public discourse. How did voters decide who to vote for without knowing what the horde thought? How did journalists operate before they had the crutch of doing poll "analyses" whenever they didn't feel like doing real reporting? Does anyone remember those days?

I'll have cotton candy for dinner

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

If I see one more "news" story on Gov. Paterson's poll ratings, I'm going to puke. I understand that the media is addicted to polls in the same way boys are addicted to Mountain Dew or Red Bull. I understand that the technique of lazy editors and reporters treating polls as news stories instead of doing real work isn't going away any time soon. But it's pathetic how polls and horse race "analysis" seem to be suffocating actual journalism on stories and issues that actually matter to ordinary people. Aside from Paterson, his rival Andrew Cuomo and their staffs, what real people are truly affected by Paterson's 19 percent rating in the latest poll a year and a half before the election? Polls are basically part of the infotainment plague infecting the news media. They are a distraction. Sound and fury, signifying very little. It's nice to have a little dessert with your meal. But when dessert becomes your main course, then it becomes unhealthy...

Independents increasingly turning on Bush

I was interested to see some poll results conducted by the American Research Group. (Kudos to my friend Mark for pointing them out)

The discovered that respondents were almost even split (45% yes, 46% no) on whether the House should begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and that a majority (54%) believed they should do so against Vice-President Cheney.

64% of all respondents disapproved of President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison time and 84% would oppose an eventual pardon for the vice-president's former chief of staff.

Apparently, most Americans don't buy the administration's mind-numbing Snow Job that the commutations 'strengthen the rule of law and increase public faith in government.'

Not surprisingly Democrats tended to support impeachment and oppose the clemency for Libby with vice versa being true for Republicans.

Bush obtained a massive 27% overall approval rating (67% disapproval).

But what interests me is the tendency among independents (by which I presume the pollsters include BOTH members of smaller parties and members of no party).

A majority of independents support impeachment for both Bush (50% for, 30% against) and Cheney (51% for, 29% against).

Independents are actually MORE opposed to Libby's commutation than Democrats (80% to 76%).

Independents are significantly MORE opposed to a potential pardon for the convicted felon than Democrats (97% to 82%).

Some have criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for taking impeachment 'off the table.' It was a political decision, not a justice-related one. Can you blame her? The cardinal rule of politics is that when your opponent is commiting suicide, stay out of the way.

The fact that such a huge portion of independents have turned against Bush and Cheney has to be a serious worry for the 2008 GOP presidential contenders.

It also demonstrates that dissatisfaction with everything about the administration can hardly be blamed on partisan Democrats.