On October 19, 2022, the New York Times — America's "paper of record" — ran a story with the headline, "Democrats’ Feared Red October Has Arrived." The purpose of the story was to explain why the Democrats will lose badly in the midterm election, which was still nearly three weeks away.
Not only are all your points valid--this is dysfunctional and misleading reporting, and takes up space that could be devoted to actually explaining the impacts of the two parties (or candidates in single races) policies, but in the current political climate it is dangerous.
It doesn't seem to have happened yet, but still could in Nevada, Georgia, or especially Arizona, but a narrow win for the Democrat, after the media published all of these articles presupposing Republican wins, could easily result in repeats of "Stop the Steal" violence and intimidation.
It was hard for me because I'm a news junkie, but I cancelled my NYT subscription over this issue, and I am hanging onto my WaPo subscription by a thread after I got the election day Opinion newsletter touting the FOUR opinion columns all complaining about all the things Democrats had done wrong that led to their massive losses--before ED voting had even started.
I cut the Times out almost a year ago because of the both sides reporting. The Post is my local paper, but without Jennifer Rubin, Dana Milbank, and Alexandra Petri, I'd be out.
Not only does the political media have a polling problem, Judd. They also have a problem adjusting their narrative and connecting with real people. Even on MSNBC during their election coverage the panel (with a notable exception) seemed truly shocked that the red wave didn’t materialize and had some difficulty figuring out that reproductive rights and threats to democracy motivated voters this election cycle.
It’s like they learned in their Political Science classes that the President always loses seats in the midterms and “it’s the economy, stupid” is gospel and have no ability to see that maybe this time, for once, it really was different.
Horse race coverage is a phenomenon that has grown over the years, but I remember screaming at the TV about it four or five decades ago. I do think the Dems could have done a better job of communicating on pocketbook issues.
The mainstream press also ran article after article in the late summer and fall stating that inflation continues to rage. The year-over-year numbers were around 8%, but the month-over-month numbers for July, August, and September were 0.0%, 0.1%, and 0.4%! In other words, 2 months of of almost no inflation and one month of moderate inflation. (See here: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm) Yet the coverage theme was, "No let-up in inflation."
"Prediction-based coverage comes at a high cost because it crowds out the coverage that voters actually need. To make an informed decision, voters need to know the practical impact of voting for each candidate." I SO agree.
Yes, Judd, this is the key take-away to hold in mind. Voters (all of us) need detailed facts and thinking that has explored cause and effect on a basic level, e.g., if a candidate has declared an intention to clean up SS by privatizing it, what that means in a practical sense must be explained.
The only pundit (that I've read) that called it correctly was Michael Moore. That's at least twice now he was right and all the other pundits (that I read) were wrong, quite wrong. What does Michael Moore know that the rest of them don't???
And worst of all, there’s the multiplier effect: NYTimes starts the ball rolling, and CNN, MSNBC, network television journalists all follow. All afraid to differ. In 2022, how are we still paying attention to the same reporters/pundits who predicted a big Clinton win in 2016?
The financial models that support traditional media are upturned which causes same media to desperately seek eyeballs. Frankly, I get much better objective & informative news & analyses from newsletters like this as well as the Bulwark, Heather Cox Richardson, Puck, Robert Reich, Jonah Goldberg etc. and additional substantive info from The Atlantic, Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs.
I agree completely, though this time a couple of Puck reporters seemed to fall into the narrative too, which was beyond disappointing. When will we as a nation realize that ‘norms’ ended in 2016 if not earlier.
Re the debt ceiling, I am hoping that the handful of reasonable Republicans will band with the Democrats against the Right wing crazies and not disband the Social security and Medicare benefits we have worked for.
I have never understood why polls are “news.” News is supposed to be about what IS happening, or HAS happened, not about what might (or might not) happen. I vote based on my analysis of candidates’ perceived ability to exercise good judgment on issues that are important to me. Even the ones who run on a “platform” of campaign promises can change their positions after they are elected and gain an insider’s insights into the issues. But if they can show me that they are capable of making good decisions, I try to trust them to do that (especially when they end up facing problems no one anticipated during the campaign). The one thing I DON’T care about is who other people think will win.
I don’t read the articles about political races unless they cover the candidates, themselves. It’s amazing how quickly I can go through the Sunday Times when I don’t need to bother with half the articles. I wonder how their advertisers feel about that.
I will agree with one thing the Times argued: many Democratic candidates DID talk too much about abortion and too little about how the party has addressed the "bread and butter issues". Perhaps if the messaging around those issues, with pointed reference to how the GOP has no solutions to anything, had been stronger and more frequent, Dems would have done even better. MTG? Really America?
PS: Donnie Jr should keep his projecting mouth shut about mental "mush". His party ran Herschel Walker as a candidate.
Having visited Georgia during the lead-up to the election, I can tell you that the ads for Walker were scary and morally reprehensible (and those were on broadcast TV). When torrents of dark money can flood the airwaves and the internet with false narratives, print media are at a distinct disadvantage, and let's face it, publishers are rarely pro-labor in their own shops. MTG's opponent (and Stacy Abrams) seemed to have plenty of yard signs, but I suspect when it came to voting, a lot of Democrats refrained from siding with a Black man in an interracial marriage. Marcus Flowers had a very uphill challenge. And, clearly, the Chamber of Commerce backed Kemp. Since when did major commercial institutions put campaign signs out front?
Local news sources are dead or dying, leaving tens of millions of voters relying on attack ads for information on local candidates. National sources are both broken, as you say, but also lazy, doing little original or thoughtful work. That’s the real reason democracy is in danger.
Thank you, Judd, for publicizing the extraordinary failure of the political media. I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times a month ago, and haven't been to their site since.
Coupled with this poll reporting instead of issues reporting is the candidate communication telling me that they need money instead of articulating a vision for what they could and would do if elected.
Yes! It's kinda hard to convince me that my $10 or even $50 makes much of a dent against the billionaires. I do think Democrats should take a look at their roster of consultants.
I've heard it said the monied progressives need to pool their resources in order to build a net of AM radio stations in the same manner that conservatives did, in order to improve democratic and independent messaging.
I have barking loudly about the media for years and I was and am still media. When big guys like Warren Buffett/BH Media eye the news as an investment it means less news. We see it from local to National. CBS has gone to hell this election series and CNN is racing that way. So many examples, so little time.
I say again to everyone getting PI for free, this Substack may be the only island of truth you get. Pay for it!! Judd and Co have to make a living for Pete's sake. He has to get a day job is what the 1% is striving for in silencing the voices of truth.
The Twitter thing is part of the 1% plan to control the voice of Twitter. Everyone but me forget that Musk went to see Putin before this sale was finalized a couple of weeks ago?
The red wave was bad enough. The MSM did enough damage that IMHO, the Red House will see that our aid to Ukraine will fizzle and Putin will be back in the saddle, the Jan 6 committee will be put to sleep, Joe Biden will catch hell and Hunter Biden will replace Trump as the worst thing ever in the screeching voice of Kevin McCarthy. The MSM will cover it like a glove. Someone you know will end up dying from the repressive abortion laws. Roevember did not take place. What happened??
More young people turned out. They just made a difference in small ways instead of big ways and in my mind they are the reason it wasn't so bad of a Red Wave.
We are in for a real mess you can count on it. Mark your calendars for what Nov. 8, 2022 will mean in history.
Not only are all your points valid--this is dysfunctional and misleading reporting, and takes up space that could be devoted to actually explaining the impacts of the two parties (or candidates in single races) policies, but in the current political climate it is dangerous.
It doesn't seem to have happened yet, but still could in Nevada, Georgia, or especially Arizona, but a narrow win for the Democrat, after the media published all of these articles presupposing Republican wins, could easily result in repeats of "Stop the Steal" violence and intimidation.
It was hard for me because I'm a news junkie, but I cancelled my NYT subscription over this issue, and I am hanging onto my WaPo subscription by a thread after I got the election day Opinion newsletter touting the FOUR opinion columns all complaining about all the things Democrats had done wrong that led to their massive losses--before ED voting had even started.
I cut the Times out almost a year ago because of the both sides reporting. The Post is my local paper, but without Jennifer Rubin, Dana Milbank, and Alexandra Petri, I'd be out.
Me too.
Not only does the political media have a polling problem, Judd. They also have a problem adjusting their narrative and connecting with real people. Even on MSNBC during their election coverage the panel (with a notable exception) seemed truly shocked that the red wave didn’t materialize and had some difficulty figuring out that reproductive rights and threats to democracy motivated voters this election cycle.
It’s like they learned in their Political Science classes that the President always loses seats in the midterms and “it’s the economy, stupid” is gospel and have no ability to see that maybe this time, for once, it really was different.
Yes, we coach voters that these are inevitable.
Horse race coverage is a phenomenon that has grown over the years, but I remember screaming at the TV about it four or five decades ago. I do think the Dems could have done a better job of communicating on pocketbook issues.
The mainstream press also ran article after article in the late summer and fall stating that inflation continues to rage. The year-over-year numbers were around 8%, but the month-over-month numbers for July, August, and September were 0.0%, 0.1%, and 0.4%! In other words, 2 months of of almost no inflation and one month of moderate inflation. (See here: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm) Yet the coverage theme was, "No let-up in inflation."
"Prediction-based coverage comes at a high cost because it crowds out the coverage that voters actually need. To make an informed decision, voters need to know the practical impact of voting for each candidate." I SO agree.
Yes, Judd, this is the key take-away to hold in mind. Voters (all of us) need detailed facts and thinking that has explored cause and effect on a basic level, e.g., if a candidate has declared an intention to clean up SS by privatizing it, what that means in a practical sense must be explained.
The only pundit (that I've read) that called it correctly was Michael Moore. That's at least twice now he was right and all the other pundits (that I read) were wrong, quite wrong. What does Michael Moore know that the rest of them don't???
Mike began calling it on 9/26/22 https://www.michaelmoore.com/p/ep-256-rumble-mikes-midterm-tsunami-campaign? His last newsletter on Monday 11/7/22 sang the same tune.... https://www.michaelmoore.com/p/midterm-tsunami-truth-39?
Perhaps because Mr. Moore used actual facts and was not trying to project or promote a biased agenda?
Quite likely. Either that or he has a time machine to jump ahead 24 hours??
We need to talk to the man then and see what he's got eh?
You may want to sign up for his newsletter. ??
I believe that I will. Thank you.
And worst of all, there’s the multiplier effect: NYTimes starts the ball rolling, and CNN, MSNBC, network television journalists all follow. All afraid to differ. In 2022, how are we still paying attention to the same reporters/pundits who predicted a big Clinton win in 2016?
The financial models that support traditional media are upturned which causes same media to desperately seek eyeballs. Frankly, I get much better objective & informative news & analyses from newsletters like this as well as the Bulwark, Heather Cox Richardson, Puck, Robert Reich, Jonah Goldberg etc. and additional substantive info from The Atlantic, Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs.
and The New Yorker!
Ha! Not a comprehensive list - just examples!
And the Intelligencer too perhaps?
I agree completely, though this time a couple of Puck reporters seemed to fall into the narrative too, which was beyond disappointing. When will we as a nation realize that ‘norms’ ended in 2016 if not earlier.
Earlier than that even. 2008 marked a true turning point in our politics and not for the better.
Agree - must pick and choose among authors…
Re the debt ceiling, I am hoping that the handful of reasonable Republicans will band with the Democrats against the Right wing crazies and not disband the Social security and Medicare benefits we have worked for.
Call your reps. During lame duck they can change the debt ceiling need to a date, say 2024, rather than an amount. There is precedent for this.
Go advice
I have never understood why polls are “news.” News is supposed to be about what IS happening, or HAS happened, not about what might (or might not) happen. I vote based on my analysis of candidates’ perceived ability to exercise good judgment on issues that are important to me. Even the ones who run on a “platform” of campaign promises can change their positions after they are elected and gain an insider’s insights into the issues. But if they can show me that they are capable of making good decisions, I try to trust them to do that (especially when they end up facing problems no one anticipated during the campaign). The one thing I DON’T care about is who other people think will win.
I don’t read the articles about political races unless they cover the candidates, themselves. It’s amazing how quickly I can go through the Sunday Times when I don’t need to bother with half the articles. I wonder how their advertisers feel about that.
I will agree with one thing the Times argued: many Democratic candidates DID talk too much about abortion and too little about how the party has addressed the "bread and butter issues". Perhaps if the messaging around those issues, with pointed reference to how the GOP has no solutions to anything, had been stronger and more frequent, Dems would have done even better. MTG? Really America?
PS: Donnie Jr should keep his projecting mouth shut about mental "mush". His party ran Herschel Walker as a candidate.
Having visited Georgia during the lead-up to the election, I can tell you that the ads for Walker were scary and morally reprehensible (and those were on broadcast TV). When torrents of dark money can flood the airwaves and the internet with false narratives, print media are at a distinct disadvantage, and let's face it, publishers are rarely pro-labor in their own shops. MTG's opponent (and Stacy Abrams) seemed to have plenty of yard signs, but I suspect when it came to voting, a lot of Democrats refrained from siding with a Black man in an interracial marriage. Marcus Flowers had a very uphill challenge. And, clearly, the Chamber of Commerce backed Kemp. Since when did major commercial institutions put campaign signs out front?
Local news sources are dead or dying, leaving tens of millions of voters relying on attack ads for information on local candidates. National sources are both broken, as you say, but also lazy, doing little original or thoughtful work. That’s the real reason democracy is in danger.
Yes! Not everyone takes the time to actually look into the candidates, in order to make an informed decision.
"Not everyone" is a kind understatement, I'm pretty sure.
I don't want to be unnecessarily... provocative let's say?
Truth!
Ban poll reporting 4 weeks before elections.
Thank you, Judd, for publicizing the extraordinary failure of the political media. I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times a month ago, and haven't been to their site since.
Coupled with this poll reporting instead of issues reporting is the candidate communication telling me that they need money instead of articulating a vision for what they could and would do if elected.
Yes! It's kinda hard to convince me that my $10 or even $50 makes much of a dent against the billionaires. I do think Democrats should take a look at their roster of consultants.
I've heard it said the monied progressives need to pool their resources in order to build a net of AM radio stations in the same manner that conservatives did, in order to improve democratic and independent messaging.
I have barking loudly about the media for years and I was and am still media. When big guys like Warren Buffett/BH Media eye the news as an investment it means less news. We see it from local to National. CBS has gone to hell this election series and CNN is racing that way. So many examples, so little time.
I say again to everyone getting PI for free, this Substack may be the only island of truth you get. Pay for it!! Judd and Co have to make a living for Pete's sake. He has to get a day job is what the 1% is striving for in silencing the voices of truth.
The Twitter thing is part of the 1% plan to control the voice of Twitter. Everyone but me forget that Musk went to see Putin before this sale was finalized a couple of weeks ago?
The red wave was bad enough. The MSM did enough damage that IMHO, the Red House will see that our aid to Ukraine will fizzle and Putin will be back in the saddle, the Jan 6 committee will be put to sleep, Joe Biden will catch hell and Hunter Biden will replace Trump as the worst thing ever in the screeching voice of Kevin McCarthy. The MSM will cover it like a glove. Someone you know will end up dying from the repressive abortion laws. Roevember did not take place. What happened??
More young people turned out. They just made a difference in small ways instead of big ways and in my mind they are the reason it wasn't so bad of a Red Wave.
We are in for a real mess you can count on it. Mark your calendars for what Nov. 8, 2022 will mean in history.