“Journalistic” Partisan Thinking
May 26, 2010
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
Over @ Columbia Journalism Review, Greg Marx, has written a piece to let us all know that the 1994 political movement led by Newt Gingrich, the Contract with America, didn’t really do anything (read whole thing here). The problem is, they have no real evidence to back up their claim and the evidence they use is either pure speculation or actually can be used as evidence to the contrary.
As a side note – I wish both the Republicans and the Democrats get new leadership which actively seeks to expand real freedoms and that would include replacing Mr. Gingrich. My goal here is not to defend Mr. Gingrich, but to highlight suspect journalism.
My reply (with some minor edits):
Using Media Matters for proof puts your entire publication at risk. They are well known as being a highly partisan outfit and the research you pointed to in order to prove your point is no different.
The basic question being asked is: Did the contract with America affect the 1994 election?
Those people, like Media Matters, who wish to devalue Mr. Gingrich’s contribution point to one basic fact: only 30% of the voters knew. One thing they point to talks about exit polls, which does lend some credence to their argument, but everything else they point to lends absolutely no credible evidence to their answer.
Simply put, if 30% of the voters are aware of some political push, you’ve done something quite difficult. Most voters don’t know anything about politics, they only know about the most recent dust-up. Most voters in 2008 still thought Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress.
Most voters don’t study things like Contract with America, or any of the other things non-profit groups might ask a candidate to sign, like tax groups asking for signatures against raising taxes. Most voters have no idea how many promises their candidates made and to whom they were made.
This does not mean that those who did know where not affected. & when elections have been very close historically, it seems odd you’d make the claim that 30% of the voting public knowing about a completely political movement meant nothing.
Maybe back out of the politics of it and think of it as a product sale. Republicans and Democrats are selling a product – themselves. Neither group knows exactly which advertisements, which communication strategies, and which campaign pushes help their vote totals, but they know they all help.
As the axiom is marketing goes: “I know 1/2 the money I spend on marketing works, I just don’t know which 1/2″
Lastly, even though you have no idea which 1/2 is working, if any CEO could get 30% of their potential client base to know specifics about an organizational push…. just wow. They’d live and die a very, very wealthy person and be sought out by every book writer and researcher to figure out just how that was possible.
For Columbia & Media Matters though – it’s just overblown.
Categories: Critical Thinking, Political Philosophy, Politics
| 
Tags: Columbia Journalism Review, Critical Thinking, Media Matters, Political Philosophy
|
Leave a reply
Wonderful insight:-)
Great information you write it very clean. I’m very lucky to get this details from you.
Hi there could I reference some of the insight found in this blog if I reference you with a link back to your site?