DU PROJECT: Media Spin vs. Voter Reality

I got this idea after I posted this thread about how CBS and "the experts" are calling last night's debate a draw, even though THEIR OWN POLLS show that voters know Kerry won.

I think we need to do a survey of all the major news outlets to find more examples of Media Spin vs. Voter Reality.

Here's what you need to do. Pick a media outlet, then go to their website and find two articles:

1. An article where the MEDIA claims the debate was a draw; and

2. An article where a SCIENTIFIC POLL shows that Kerry won.


Example: For CBS The Result would look like this:

Media Spin
"Experts Rate Debate a Draw"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/01/politics/main646711.shtml

Voter Reality
"Poll: Uncommitted Voters Say Kerry Won"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/01/opinion/polls/main646712.shtml

Post your research in this discussion thread...

Every media outlet and LTTEs coming out of my arse. My local paper (Rochester Democrat and Chronicle) said NOTHING about Bush's demeanor during the debate. I asked them what the "Liberal Press" would have commented on today had Kerry failed so miserably in the "Debate". Al Gore was crucified for much less but the Media holds lower expectations for Bush I guess. I told them I expected more from a President and that John Kerry would be getting my vote.
I've been doing my part, and I'm not done yet. Let's all keep the pressure on the Press and make them accountable for realistic coverage of what I considered a near melt down of Georgie Boy.

Media Spin
"The loser last night was Kerry"
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041001/news_lz1ed1top.html

Voter Reality
"3 Polls Show Kerry Won Debate Over Bush"
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEBATE_RDP?SITE=CADIU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Great catch.

"Encounter did little to change dynamics of race," though "The loser last night was Kerry" is still in the body of the article.

all the crap they got so they are trying extra hard to show they are not biased by being biased in favor of republicans. i think the sumner redstone endorsement of bush was the same thing.

and considering that cbs guy scheiffer is hosting one of the debates i wonder if he will go out of his way to be harder on Kerry.

Media Spin
"PUNDITS SCORECARD"
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/debates/press.pundits

"Carlos Watson, Political analyst BUSH: B+/B KERRY: B/B+"


Voter Reality
"Poll: Kerry tops Bush in debate"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.poll/index.html

"Overall, 53 percent of Thursday's debate watchers interviewed said Kerry did the better job, compared with 37 percent who favored Bush."

Media Spin
"Political strategists declare debate a draw"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041001-123117-5788r.htm

Um... absolutely no comments whatsoever on undecided voter polls. Keep an eye on this site to see if they make any mention of what the voters actually thought.

Media Spin
I'm still looking for this one.

Voter Reality
Kerry gets edge in instant media surveys of public
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6149899/

Media Spin
Still looking

Voter Reality
"Polls: Kerry Won Debate"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134207,00.html

If anyone else wants to help out, that would be great. ;-)

undecided voter monitoring project, simulcast last night on CNNfn. Blondeatlast remarked on it on the debate threads and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=929508
About all I could find out about it otherwise is here
http://www.turnerinfo.com/newsitem.aspx?P=CNN&CID01=a46bdecb-e7af-4e92-9870-98857fd15092
and here
http://www.thelantern.com/news/2004/09/30/Campus/Cnn-To.Broadcast.Live.At.Osu-737296.shtml

According to Blondeatlast, Kerry was absolutely slaying Bush; funny isn't it that CNN doesn't want to ballyhoo such a fascinating and successful experiment with such clearly decisive results?

Not so much negative as puzzled. (They had required emailers to say whether the message was positive or negative.) This is in regard to CNN, CNNfn & CNN.com, though I'm looking at the latter. I was told that the debate last night was simulcast on CNNfn with undecided voters registering their reactions. I was told by a friend who has CNNfn (to the best of my knowledge I do not) that the responses were very, very strongly pro-Kerry. I would like to have seen this either confirmed, refuted or even mentioned somewhere in your reporting either here or at cnn/money, but no such luck. What on Earth gives? It seems like a fascinating and important story at the very least.

Media Spin
A Draw, and maybe a win for Kerry
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,703928,00.html?cnn=yes

Voter Reality
Who won the first presidential debate?
http://www.time.com/time

Time poll, right hand side, currently:

George W. Bush - 12.9%
John Kerry - 85.6%
Draw - 1.5%

National Review Online writer thinks Kerry won.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger200410010114.asp

John Baer | 1st round goes to W.

Kerry needed a knockout, and he didn't get it

HILLARY won.

Or one of the Johns. You know, McCain or Edwards.

Or anybody else seriously looking to run in '08 after George W. Bush serves out his second term.

That's because John Kerry, who had to score a knockout last night, landed some punches but didn't take the title.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/9806488.htm

A Readers' poll http://www.nbc10.com/news/3692935/detail.html just below that article shows that viewers felt that Kerry bested Bush 82%-14%.

:kick:

I appreciate that most of the heavy lifting in the spin machine is done by the cable network pundits, and they are equivalent to newspaper editorialists, but still there's a difference between a front page headline, "Bush Wins Debate" and an op-ed piece, "Kerry didn't win big enough." Specifically, I'm talking about the Phila. Inquirer piece linked below; no criticism of DUer Monica_L implied, of course.

is by definition editorializing. After all, the article was not entitled "Our opinion is that 1st round goes to W." :shrug:

(as the Modesto Bee said, though the expert, and I'm not making this up, turned out to be the local junior college debate coach) and "I say Bush won," as in the Inquirer piece. But again, this is no criticism of you or your link; I was just asking.

who swear under oath to diametrically opposed viewpoints and scenarios. Whose experts are the 'real' experts whose are editoralizing?

Working on it from this end.

Also, what does DU plan to do with this info? Something far-reaching, I hope.

This doesn't quite qualify for the thread, because rather than comparing spin to voter reality, it contrasts headline spin to the article's reality. Both are here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1001/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent
Global reaction: No clear debate winner
But Kerry's critique of Iraq policies puts him back in the race.

The actual stories mentioned from the global press all give it to Kerry; the worst they say is that he didn't stomp Bush as badly as he might have. Moreover, it was a pretty selective digest; international stories mostly seem to say that Kerry indeed stomped Bush.

Hope this helps on some level.

:kick:

Headline implies there's some controversy; article says across-the-board Kerry win

The debate's real winner? It depends on the measure
By Seth Borenstein
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A panoply of self-styled experts dissected Thursday's Bush-Kerry debate by monitoring smirks, smiles, posture, repetition and redundancy. They parsed sentences and counted syllables. They polled hundreds of people and measured the second-by-second feelings of a handful of undecided voters.

Some, heaven forbid, even paid attention to what the candidates were saying to judge the strengths of their arguments.

But there was one near-constant among the analyses: Sen. John Kerry won.
(more)
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9813776.htm

the person who writes the article. Headlines are added last by someone who does headlines