Here’s something that struck me as odd.
Let’s think back about a week – specifically, before the plethora of polls this week unanimously showing Deval Patrick with roughly a 25 point lead over Kerry Healey. Before the first of those polls started leaking out on Monday, the most recent polling was from SurveyUSA on October 11 and Suffolk on October 12, both of which showed that Patrick’s initial (and artificially inflated) lead over Healey had shrunk either to 18% (SurveyUSA) or 13% (Suffolk). Two weeks then elapsed, during which time Healey battered Patrick non-stop with her “soft on crime” mantra, the Ben LaGuer ad had seemingly been hardwired to run in an endless loop on everyone’s TV set, lefty pundits and bloggers expressed concern (at 1:30) about Patrick’s handling of the issue, right-wing bloggers claimed (at 2:15) that the whole issue would hurt Patrick and would help Healey, the Herald disclosed Patrick’s brother-in-law’s rape conviction, and the Healey campaign and its sympathizers routinely claimed that Patrick was “in free-fall” in the polls, especially in light of top-secret “internal” Healey polls that supposedly showed the race in single digits.
And nobody really knew how the voters were taking it, because no independent polls had been done for weeks.
Then, this past Tuesday, three independent polls were released on the same day – Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, and Suffolk. They all showed the same thing: Patrick’s lead had exploded to about 25 points; the crime thing had ended up hurting Kerry Healey terribly and not hurting Deval Patrick much at all; a majority of likely voters have an unfavorable view of Healey; the race is not in single digits (which led Andy Hiller to declare those claims by the Healey camp a “bluff”); and Deval Patrick is not even close to in free-fall.
Strikes me as a big story, and a significant moment in the general election campaign. The Herald thought so too, blaring on Wednesday’s front page that Healey was “dead in the water” – a headline that got a lot of attention.
Yet the Globe barely reported the results Wednesday morning. Not only did the Globe’s story cover only one of the three polls (Suffolk), and not only was it written by reporters whose names had not commonly surfaced in Governor’s race stories before (April Simpson and Andrew Ryan), but the story was buried on page A17 or something. It wasn’t even on the front page of the Metro section. It was in that little part of section A that’s after the editorial page that they use sometimes when they can’t find anywhere else to put things. Yes, there was a little teaser about the polls on the front page, but the actual front-page story on the Governor’s race that day was a below-the-fold puff piece about Kerry Healey’s mom.
Now what could possibly explain the Globe’s odd treatment of those polls?
Oh, and speaking of peculiarities in the Globe. I don’t know what “Democrats” Brian McGrory has been talking to when he spouts crap like “not even Democrats are buying this week’s polls that have Patrick ahead by more than 20 points.” If by “buying” the polls McGrory’s talking about Dems assuming that this week’s polls guarantee a victory by that amount in 11 days, OK, that’s fair enough — no Dems in their right minds are relaxing just because a couple of polls show their guy doing well. But if McGrory is talking about believing that these polls are an accurate snapshot of where the electorate is right now, you bet I believe them. Fact is, four scientifically valid polls were released this week, and all four showed almost exactly the same thing: Patrick up by 25. Like it or not, polling works, and if the election were held this week, that’s most likely what the result would be.
Of course, the election isn’t this week, which is why we must all redouble our efforts. Patrick is right: “ignore the polls,” because it would be terrible strategy to do anything else. But McGrory is wrong: there is no reason to disbelieve them.
And yet they find room for the ludicrous story about how Deval hasn’t actually spent much time recently in a physical courtroom… as though the law were like it is on tv where Ally McBeal goes into court all on her own and pulls some amazing defense out of her ass at the last moment. A story bad enough in itself, but then it lets morons like Brian McGrory (and I’m sorry, but the man has to be a moron if he thinks that he’s singlehandedly responsible for Kerry’s campaign strategy, as implied in today’s column. Also, I’m from Hingham so I think he’s a moron anyways) make cracks about how Deval skips court to go play tennis.
<
p>
It sort of helps to explain why the supposedly “liberal” paper in Boston is in Bankrupcy. I certainly stopped buying it a while ago. Maybe Jack Welch won’t buy it because it’s too liberal (anyone else notice that Mike Barnacle was at the meeting?)
Isn’t big enough for an amazing defense….an agreed plea bargain maybe.
Reading this thread set me off all over again about how flat out dumb that McGrory column was. Ticked me off so much that I can’t quite let it go. So, with apologies to readers who already saw this on one of yesterday’s threads, I re-post (with minor corrections and modifications) my own ventings on that topic here:
<
p>
Kerry Healey first set out to run as a kind of humorless (no EB III, she), charmless Bill Weld. Ok, there was a bit of immigrant bashing added as the special wedge issue. But, that aside, her themes were going to be “two party balance” and “taxes, taxes, taxes.” Early on, it became clear that this wouldn’t work. That’s when, in desperation, she started trying to make Deval Patrick into Willie Horton–with the results we’ve all seen. Morally, it was a truly reprehensible move, but I’m not sure its tactical stupidity was at all obvious. (After all, some of us were a bit worried about a tightening race not that long ago.) And, again, she was going nowhere, anyway–maybe not 25 points down nowhere, but nowhere none the less. She had nothing to lose but her decency.
<
p> That’s the stupidity of McGrory’s column: in explaining how well Healey would be doing if she’d not employed the attacks of the past month, he prescribes the very approach that failed her at the start of the campaign. Oh, and the other idiocy in that column: M. treats Healey’s attack ads as lamentable, but then says she’s recovering some of her dignity and reputation in these final days of the campaign. Why? Because when consumers everywhere refused to purchase Evil Race-Baiting Muffy, the product managers pulled her and rolled out Genial, Wonkish Muffy (a humorless Chris Gabrieli, if you like). How is it that a strictly opportunistic personality makeover, sans apology (and, for that matter, with the worst ad still running) rehabilitates character or reputation? Damned if I know. Perhaps McGrory will explain that in his next column.
The Globe has (in my subjective view) been softly trying to prop up Healey and Romney. Maybe Romney and Healey are good sources of stories. Newspapers don’t just protect their sources from investigations-they give them or deny them spin protection depending on personal relationships and cooperation on scoops and stories.
Seems Boston’s print media world turned topsy-turvy this political season.
<
p>
The Herald endorsed Ted Kennedy today, and appears to be more forthcoming with negative Healey stories. The Globe, on the other hand has been hungering for anything potentially negative to Deval.
You notes that four polls were released this week, and that the Globe paid scant attention to three of them. The fourth was today’s:
If the Globe is going to pay for a poll, it looks pretty silly reporting the results as big news two days after headlines reporting other people’s polls. All they were doing with the poll reporting was making sure to highlight their own work.
<
p>
For what it’s worth, the “puff piece” on Healey’s mom did point out the contrast between the sweet daughter and her vicious alter ego who ran the nasty ads. I agree with the points made elsewhere about the lameness of the prosecutor story.
<
p> – Dan
that’s pretty much my point. But in terms of actual news value, there’s little doubt that the Wednesday story reporting the Tuesday polls was the front-page story, regardless of who paid for the poll. Today’s story — which appeared on page 1, above the fold — was little more than an afterthought.
<
p>
So my point, in case my post wasn’t clear enough, is that the Globe shouldn’t be deciding which polls are and aren’t newsworthy based on who paid for them. Bad luck that the Globe’s poll came out two days too late, but them’s the breaks.
Another thing has been bothering me: Why did we go so long (it was about two weeks, wasn’t it?) with no polls being released and then had four come out in the course of two days? Aren’t these people aware of when the others are scheduled to conduct polls? Wouldn’t it have made sense for the Globe/WBZ to jump ahead of the others and do their poll earlier, when no one else was polling?
That’s a good question. I’d guess that the answer is “no.” I’m sure polling is a competitive business, and exactly when they’re planning to do a poll seems trade secret-ish to me. But I could be wrong.
Over the course of this campaign, I have called several reporters and op ed writers about the content and the quality of their writing. Newspapers are trying to make the news rather than report it. When issues are discussed calmly and dispassionately the media is upset, they think they know the public likes a street fight and that is what they appeal to in their readership. They work hard to make situations look like street fights even when they are not. They look for the bad and the worst case scenario. They reflect the negativity in our culture; our tendency to want to look at the train wreck or hear every last detail about the most recent murder.
<
p>
Perhaps this election will demonstrate that people don’t want a fight or an attack, they want what Deval offers, which is hope and optimism, and a belief that we can make things better if we all work together. The media constantly pushes the issues and the specifics, but the reality is that people do not vote on issues,If they did John Kerry would be president. People vote more on the person/character than on a specific plan of action. Deval’s engaging positive manner, his oratory, and his life story are responsible for his likely victory, not how he will actually lower the property tax. It is enough that he wants to do it and that he will work to make it happen.
So they want a cliff hanger: a race run right up to the last minute. In this case, that requires giving a boost to Healey. The feeble-minded “not a real prosecutor” story is a case in point. If the situation were reversed, they might run a few pieces more favorable to Patrick. I basically am agreeing here with the analysis in Rhonda’s first paragraph. The point to remember is that the Globe, like other media outlets (although, interestingly, not so much blogs, because it only costs $15 a month to publish this baby, which has the same potential circulation as millions of dollars worth of newsprint, presses, and delivery trucks) is first and foremost a business. It is only secondarily, when at all, the Fourth Estate, a clarion for the people, the mouthpiece of democracy, and all that other wonderful stuff.
So, your definition of the Fourth Estate, isn’t that what blogs are: “a clarion for the people, the mouthpiece of democracy and all that wonderful stuff?”
Sorry, I should have explained that!
Please do us all a favor and stop speculating who is in whose pockets on these stories! Brian McGrory is entitled to think what he thinks without people wieghing some loyalty pledge over his head. Your partisanship needs to be summarily halted!
<
p>
You know what, there’s still a lot I don’t know about Deval Patrick. I’ll probably vote for him, with reservation. I think Muffy would be a disaster, but I’m not thinking the golden age will commence once he comes into office.
<
p>
If a writer pursues an avenue, you all get so offended that he hasn’t put him or her in the best light. As I’ve said before, the papers don’t work for the candidates. They may share similar beliefs, but don’t mistake that for some kind of unwritten code for “hands off”. That’s what journalism and integrity are about. The powers in office are always at an advantage whenever they call press conferences.
<
p>
If you want everyone to agree on the same thing all the time, you’re going to be sorry. If you want Deval Patrick to walk away with the election with no questions asked, then you’re not giving him the chance to earn our votes. We might as well write a script and start with the end first.
Of course it’s wrong to think that either paper should work for a candidate, and its especially wrong to think that the “news” part (as opposed to the editorial pages) should be focusing their coverage on what will best help a particular campaign. But I’d register two dissents from your posts. First, if a columnist slants coverage in a way that is dumb or tendentious, that should be fair game for commentary. Every columnist has a right to his or her opinion; doesn’t mean that opinion shouldn’t itself be subject to judgment. And bad arguments or ill-supported assertions ought to be named as such. Of course McGrory, e.g., should be held to no loyalty oath; but he should have to say stuff that actually makes sense. Second, when a paper’s political “news” coverage on an election seems to pursue trivial or inappropriate issues in a way that reflects the talking points of one campaign that’s fair game, too. It’s not a matter of conspiracy theorizing but one of assessing the aptness of how a paper counts as news. (Here, unlike some commentators on BMG, I’d single out Dave Wedge’s political coverage as, on balance, especially appaling. But to each his or her own.)
I think one must take the coverage of a paper as a whole and not dissect every columnist; they offer a more complete picture of the issues. To say that one thing is dumb is a matter of opinion. It may also be a function of the lack of coverage about Deval Patrick’s career that cam up during the primary.
<
p>
How many times have people been stunned by how the BG and the BH seem to have flipped roles over the course of the election? The Herald pursues Healey to answer why LeGuer’s defense attorney is working on her campaign (Carey Ross) and McGrory writes a column that many on this borad take as pro-Healey. I take that as a sign that thye might be doing their job. We’re the grandstanders. We tell them how wrong they are, but until you step into their workday and their deadlines, you’ll never understand.
But they should welcome criticism. If their ideas and their arguments are sound, they’ll look good. If they have made mistakes, however, they will indeed look “dumb,” or mis-informed, if you prefer. In any event, simply stating that unless one “step into their workday and their deadlines” one cannot offer effective useful criticism seems a fairly unconstructive response. Are you suggesting only columnists can criticize other columnists? Maybe foxes should also be put in charge of henhouse security.
Patrick’s people come out with an ad featuring Martha Coakley. She tells us that he worked as a prosecutor. If he spent no time in court, isn’t that relevant? When you hear prosecutor, don’t you think of court? You don’t think of someone as an “administrator”, as they show. It seems more out of anger that you keep calling an article “dumb” without being constructive, as you tried to point out.
<
p>
When a candidate tries to portray themselves as one thing or another, don’t you think it’s relevant? When Healey tried to make herself some arch crime fighter, don’t you think they should look into it? Are her appearances on a crime board relevant? Are the thoughts of repsected criminologists important in temepring our view of her as being interested in crime as opposed to a campaign.
<
p>
I suppose it’s probably pointless making statements anyway. You don’t want to hear anything that is remotely negative towards Partick.
While I agree with you in theory, it’s really hard for me to understand how the article about how Deval didn’t spend much time in the courtroom can be seen as anything other than dumb. It shows a complete lack of intelligence about what lawyers do and how courtroom proceedings work. Anyone who knows anything about the legal system other than what can be gleaned from Perry Mason has to see how dumb that article was… don’t they?
My guess on why the Herald and Globe have covered this election in such an atypical way is due to the following:
<
p>
Both the Herald and Globe are losing readers. Who are the readers they are losing?
<
p>
Herald: Their conservatism has probably lost them a lot of blue collar Democrats who enjoy their layout but hate their politics. Veering to the “left” may be a strategy to get those readers back.
<
p>
Globe: Moderate to right-leaning readers have been fleeing the Globe because of its perceived left-wing bias. Many conservatives I know have a saying, “the best local paper in Boston is the New York Times.” So the Globe needs to get these right-leaning readers back, and they are doing it by covering the election in a more moderate way.
<
p>
Just a guess.
left-leaning editorial board.
Which are pretty similar, took a bit of a blow today with the Globe’s prominent play of Patrick’s warning to aoid complacency. I guess our interpretation, or at least mine, would be: the Globe will tack a bit to the right if the stakes are low, but when serious business is at hand (like making sure Patrick wins … and complacency could be a serious problem if it depresses turnout) their true colors fly.
The “avoid complacency” article, from AP, is prominently placed on Boston.com, but I don’t see it anywhere in my printed newspaper.
None of these things are mutually exclusive
<
p>
1. Globe giving more favorable play to Healey because they want to keep it a horse race to keep up interest and sell papers.
<
p>
2. Globe giving more favorable play to Healey because they have gotten to know Romney, Healey, and their staff over the past few years and are protecting their sources. A related motive is that if Romney became president they would have robust access to the White House for scoops and insider info. They didn’t know Deval Patrick and dont have the same personal relations with him.
<
p>
3. Globe tacking right to try to capture more conservative readers.
<
p>
4. Actually more Republican – sympathetic management at the Globe.
<
p>
My favorite theory is #2 but all could apply.