Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Electile Dysfunction: Why the Media Turned a Foregone Conclusion Into a Horse Race

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Electile Dysfunction: Why the Media Turned a Foregone Conclusion Into a Horse Race


observer.com

That sure worked out nicely didn’t it? If you were in the news business, this election could not have gone better for you.

Conveniently, what once appeared to be in the bag morphed into a horse race (despite none of the fundamental conditions changing). Miraculously the media was gifted with endless spectacle, controversy, and twists and turns.

What happened?
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Excellent analysis of the 2012 election and the obvious, and maybe not so obvious, media manipulation (and not necessarily mass media.) How do we go from a pretty boring couple of candidates and a seemingly foregone conclusion to a "tight race" to results that mirror the boring candidates and foregone conclusion?

I saw it here in Minnesota, a very obvious case. In a state that hadn't voted for a Republican president since Richard Nixon in 1972, and where President Obama enjoyed a 8-10 point lead, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published poll results in mid-October that said the lead had shrunk to three points, a statistical tie. A lot of people, including me, immediately said "what?" but within a few days, we had all the trappings of a swing state, with the Romney campaign (which, to that point, didn't even have a campaign office in the state) and Super PACs pouring money into media advertising. Neither Obama nor his supporting PACs seemed to do much different.

And, when all was said and done, Obama sailed to an eight point victory over Romney in the state. The only question that remains, it seems, is whether that apparent manipulation was in favour of boosting local media income, or to take resources away from "real" swing states.

observer.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 8-11-2012 by adjensen because: oopsies



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
ya
but the polls were skewed
THEY WERE SKEWED!!!


(answer: ratings to keep the perpetually delusional interested)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
A foregone conclusion does not generate clicks and ad impressions.


The business model for blogs encourages publishers and writers to value the click above other potential goals, such as truth, accuracy, or fairness.


I think this model applies across most for-profit media, unfortunately.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I thought the "tight race" thing was overblown too. Most people I knew were pretty sure the conclusion was gonna be Obama without much struggle. I think it was done to make the perception of the race seem closer so media could take in ratings as well as try to influence public opinion. But even better than the Presidential election nice work Colorado and Washington.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You nailed it: no one tunes in for humdrum news.

I worked in radio for a few months. I discovered how much "media" takes great pains to drum up its own support.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Yeah, I noticed it, all the attention was crap as it was a foregone conclusion. Just to add, the bookies over here in the U.K. called it straight from the start, easy win for obama.

I guess the most expensive puppet show on earth needed some hype
edit on 8-11-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
As an outside observer (*non Yan'kee) I, too, found it strange the thing was turned into something it wasn't. From my vantage point, Obama had this in the bag; even after his lackluster first debate.

Nothing Romney did was good, most of it was in fact laughably bad and it was only when Obama didn't capitalise that Romeny's chances were played up. In fact, the election feed I was getting called the Obama win well before and US stations had.

Even in America, how someone with the likes of the Tea Party and those who think gods will conception through rape behind them could have had any chance against an amiable Obama, only Fox News could rationalise.
[
edit on 9-11-2012 by BeneathBaseStupidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeneathBaseStupidity
Nothing Romney did was good, most of it was in fact laughably bad and it was only when Obama didn't capitalise that Romeny's chances were played up. In fact, the election feed I was getting called the Obama win well before and US stations had.


I don't remember if it's a law, or just an accepted standard, but the media in the US won't "call" an election until the polls are closed in that state, even when it's a foregone conclusion.

The Associated Press called the US Senate election here in Minnesota eight minutes after the polls closed, with zero percent of precincts reporting, because the incumbent was so far ahead in all polling that, even if she'd clubbed a baby seal to death on live TV the day before the election, she'd still have breezed to victory. But no one said it until polls closed.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Excellent analysis of the 2012 election and the obvious, and maybe not so obvious, media manipulation (and not necessarily mass media.) How do we go from a pretty boring couple of candidates and a seemingly foregone conclusion to a "tight race" to results that mirror the boring candidates and foregone conclusion?

I saw it here in Minnesota, a very obvious case. In a state that hadn't voted for a Republican president since Richard Nixon in 1972, and where President Obama enjoyed a 8-10 point lead, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published poll results in mid-October that said the lead had shrunk to three points, a statistical tie. A lot of people, including me, immediately said "what?" but within a few days, we had all the trappings of a swing state, with the Romney campaign (which, to that point, didn't even have a campaign office in the state) and Super PACs pouring money into media advertising. Neither Obama nor his supporting PACs seemed to do much different.

And, when all was said and done, Obama sailed to an eight point victory over Romney in the state. The only question that remains, it seems, is whether that apparent manipulation was in favour of boosting local media income, or to take resources away from "real" swing states.

observer.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 8-11-2012 by adjensen because: oopsies


No. The real question is if this fabricated horse race was more to do with propping up the illusion of choice. Some of us called the election results years ago.






top topics



 
8

log in

join