Spring Break
DANIEL ORTNER: Spin doctors and our sick politics
by Daniel Ortner
Columnists | 1/15/08
Posted online at 12:02 AM EST on 1/15/08
In the wake of Sen. Hillary Clinton's surprise victory in the New Hampshire presidential primary Jan. 9, pollsters attributed their disastrous miscalculations to a slew of events: They cited Hillary Clinton's display of emotions at a New Hampshire campaign stop and even the specter of the Bradley Effect, in which feelings of guilt over potentially racist emotions lead to higher levels of expressed support for African Americans such as Sen. Barack Obama in polls but not in the voting booth.
While all of these could have been factors, a surprising near-omission was the effect of the media and all of their polls. Indeed, throughout the 2008 primary cycle it seems that rather than objectively covering trends, the media have been creating and weaving misleading and ultimately damaging narratives.
Both Clinton and Obama have fallen victim to the insidious effect of labeling a candidate as inevitable and giving him or her an aura of invincibility. A few months ago, when Clinton held a double-digit lead in polls in New Hampshire and other key states, the media were quick to crown her the victor.
However, it was largely because of this labeling that a rather innocuous answer about her support for a New York legislation to allow illegal immigrants to hold driver's licenses snowballed into her plummet in the polls and the ultimate victory of Obama in Iowa.
Indeed, a single overly nuanced answer to a complicated question could not have been so damaging to an otherwise well-oiled campaign were it not for the the media spin; it is unlikely that Clinton's campaign would have become so desperate as to unleash a slew of poorly targeted attacks on Obama's kindergarten essay or his well-known teenage drug usage.
After his crushing victory in Iowa, Obama was a casualty of the same powerful effect. Obama won Iowa through the commanding youth turnout that was energized by his message of hope. However, when polls showed him holding a commanding double-digit lead in New Hampshire, it is likely that many supporters felt they no longer needed to turn out.
While all of these could have been factors, a surprising near-omission was the effect of the media and all of their polls. Indeed, throughout the 2008 primary cycle it seems that rather than objectively covering trends, the media have been creating and weaving misleading and ultimately damaging narratives.
Both Clinton and Obama have fallen victim to the insidious effect of labeling a candidate as inevitable and giving him or her an aura of invincibility. A few months ago, when Clinton held a double-digit lead in polls in New Hampshire and other key states, the media were quick to crown her the victor.
However, it was largely because of this labeling that a rather innocuous answer about her support for a New York legislation to allow illegal immigrants to hold driver's licenses snowballed into her plummet in the polls and the ultimate victory of Obama in Iowa.
Indeed, a single overly nuanced answer to a complicated question could not have been so damaging to an otherwise well-oiled campaign were it not for the the media spin; it is unlikely that Clinton's campaign would have become so desperate as to unleash a slew of poorly targeted attacks on Obama's kindergarten essay or his well-known teenage drug usage.
After his crushing victory in Iowa, Obama was a casualty of the same powerful effect. Obama won Iowa through the commanding youth turnout that was energized by his message of hope. However, when polls showed him holding a commanding double-digit lead in New Hampshire, it is likely that many supporters felt they no longer needed to turn out.
Be the first to comment on this story