Maybe you can help me out with this. It’s a minor point in some respects, but in others I think it actually matters.
When we published our poll yesterday, it was quickly picked up all over the place. Everyone is understandably hungry for polling on the rapidly-changing situation here, and especially since our poll was the first taken entirely after Monday’s televised debate, it was widely seen as newsworthy. The DNC e-blasted it out shortly after I posted it, and since then oodles of national political observers have cited it — TPM, The Hill, Political Wire, Cillizza at WaPo, Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, Politics Daily, even Fox News and National Review, along with national political blogs like Daily Kos and FDL, all linked to us. Not surprisingly, yesterday was one of our highest traffic days ever with nearly 13,000 unique visitors.
Oddly, though, to read our local media outlets, you’d have no idea that our poll existed. Yet they’re all over the Suffolk poll released last night that showed Brown up 50-46. An AP story picked up by both the Globe and WBUR covers the Suffolk poll, but doesn’t mention our poll — even though the sample sizes were identical, the timeframe overlapped, the methods are the same (both live interviews), and the pollsters are both reputable non-partisan operations. UPDATE: We did finally get a little love from WBUR. And the Herald, of course, has gone bananas over the Suffolk result, plastering it on their front page while ignoring us. David Bernstein at the Phoenix hasn’t mentioned either poll on his blog, but he did mention the Suffolk poll on his Facebook account (which he uses as sort of a mini-blog). No mention of ours.
So, what’s going on here? Why are the local media trumpeting the Suffolk poll that has Brown ahead by 4, while ignoring an identical-in-all-relevant-respects poll that showed Coakley up by 8? The right way to report this stuff is the way Marc Ambinder did it: cite them both, and talk about how interesting the disparities are. Instead, we’ve got the local mediabots delivering the false impression that Brown is running away with it.
Part of this is that I find it fascinating that we are being thoroughly ignored by the local media, even as the nationals are picking us up. My goodness, do they really hate us that much? But part of it is that, by ignoring us, the locals are delivering inaccurate reporting. Most people interested in this election know about the Globe; most don’t know about BMG. So when they go to the Globe’s website to find the latest news, and they read a story saying “poll shows Brown up by 4” without any mention of another, functionally identical poll showing a very different result, they get a false impression of what’s actually going on. I can’t say I’m shocked that the Herald did it this way. But the rest of them … I don’t get it.
at the thought of a Brown victory, and want to control the political discourse by judiciously publishing polls that favor Brown or predict a horse race. Brown is getting way more free coverage by TV outlets than Coakley also. I wonder if a similar right-leaning local blog would get mentioned if they conducted a similar poll to BMG.
Brown is good for ratings and he is married to one of the “media elites” of Boston. I am sure that a least a few of our so-called-liberal-media are saying “Who wants to go to a cocktail party at Coakley’s house? Not me.”
. . . a redux of the 2000 presidential. The media preferred the company of the candidate that they perceived to be a lovable rapscallion, and gave unambiguously awful coverage of the wonkish intellectual who “bored” them.
<
p>Some things never change . . .
Has been out campaigning. It really difficult to get a quote from a candidate who is on vaceation. Comparisons to Nero are appropriate.
If they wanted Brown to win, they’d promote polls that had Coakley winning so that Democrats would get complacent. This is largely going to be about turnout.
<
p>I think the more likely explanation is that a Brown victory is more exciting because it’s unexpected, and therefore they’re focusing on polls which imply chaos. Coakley winning is boring, Brown winning is a shock to the political system. News outlets want ratings. (The national media coverage of the story skews more towards politics junkies, who want any poll they can get their hands on.)
… most of the media is not smart enough to think two steps ahead. It’s all about getting people to watch, read and click. Nothing more.
It’s about Time for the democrats in this state to take some of their on medicine!
to know how to respond to nonsensical comments.
When Coakley wins on Tuesday (trying to be positive and not paranoid!), there will be a deafening silence from our trollish visitors.
. . . from your mouth to G-d’s ears!
. . . it means no one on our side is going to rest easy. Forget the polls– we just have to WORK OUR ARSES OFF from here through Election Day!!!!
could have just sited the poll itself similar to The Hill. I had a message waiting for me when I first sat at my desk this morning asking what is going on in the race. I explain similar to what David just noted, a poll with the same sample over the same time period gave a completely different result. It’s all over the place right now. But it does bring a false sense of what is going on in the state.
The more the candidates believe this is a photo finish, the more demand there is for last minute media buys and the higher the local media companies can charge. This is why in many versions of campaign finance reform there are often provisions for stabilizing media prices or even granting ‘free’ access to candidates as an obligation attached to wireless band rights and licensing.
<
p>Note that the local candidates are not buying national media buys so there is no incentive for the same behavior non-locally.
<
p>More here.
But you could be on to something. Though I note that the NYT or WaPo are not listed as citing it…maybe they did but it seems most of the national orgs citing it are big national blogs or political specialty news orgs.
in Cillizza’s “The Fix” blog – link is in the post.
For weeks the local news narrative has been obsessed with a Brown surge. This has little or nothing to do with ideology.
Rather, as Brown campaigned (for weeks virtually unopposed) as the plucky underdog aiming for an upset that narrative took hold in the local media. WBUR, for example gave endless breathy coverage to the old Ras poll showing a 9 point poll.
<
p>I listen to Alan Chartock’s Media Project, and the (non-national) newspaper guys on there just can’t get their heads around blogs. They tend to see blogs as parasites that harm their readership, not as sources. You have to have an “editor” to have reliable news, didn’t you know that?
<
p>2. The Globies pull stories off the State House News Service, and I didn’t see a mention of the BMG poll there.
<
p>3. Suffolk University is part of the establishment in Boston. BMG is not (yet).
<
p>Mark
Research 2000 did, it’s a reputable polling company.
The guy on the upstate NY station?
on a big fat chunk of Western MA.
So we must be three times as newsworthy as a normal newspaper, I guess. Or something.
<
p>Pretty amusing.
Maybe I’m just wrong, I’m certainly behind the eight ball these days.
<
p>I know Research 2000 is reputable, though associated with DailyKos (a taint for the VRWC). I assume you sent out a press release. (Suffolk University seems to). Publishing a survey in the Globe might get immediate attention, but other local outlets may not consider BMG in the same vein.
<
p>Yeah, Alan Chartock. Maybe you don’t listen to WAMC in Eastern Mass? He lives in the Berkshires. The Media Project is broadcast on Sunday and Monday. Chartock and most often Rex Smith of The Albany Times Union are the panel. Although Rex recently referred to blogs as “repurposing” their content, that’s the closest they’ve come to understanding what blogs like BMG do. They tend to view blogs as online journals. They may see a political difference between Michelle Malkin and the DailyKos, but I’ve yet to hear them acknowledge the truth value of political blogs. I think the MSM is generally clueless about blogs being anything but editorializing.
<
p>Bob, I think you’re right. BMG’s poll is very newsworthy. It’s a poll on a tight race. It’s your first poll. BMG is becoming increasingly important on the state’s political scene.
<
p>BMG itself is also newsworthy. Three opera singers found a major political voice for a state? What are the odds?
<
p>
and I mean the media business. Just like Sarah Palin is good for business.
<
p>The media outlets you cite are desperately seeking revenue. Ratings. Traffic. Eyeballs.
<
p>Martha Coakley coasting to victory doesn’t do it.
<
p>Look at what is already happening:
<
p>This is all about buzz, celebrity, and most of all cash.
<
p>Nobody cares about the politics, or for that matter, the truth or what happens as a result.
<
p>Oh, and by the way, has anybody else noticed that the story now running unchallenged (and even supported by too many Democrats) is that “President Obama’s Health Care Bill is in trouble” (or “The Democrat’s Health Care Bill …”)? Our “leadership” gutted the Democratic bill months ago in a futile effort to gain “bipartisan” support — and when we got none, we stupidly left our brand on the disastrous result.
<
p>The story ought to be “The compromise health care reform bill is in trouble.” Where is CJ when we need her?
<
p>This is a media game. Up to now, Scott Brown and the GOP have been playing it better than our guys (“I’ll protect our children from internet predators”??????).
<
p>We’re in the Big Show, and we need to act accordingly.
<
p>Finally, when Martha Coakley wins (which she will), and the federal indictments of Beacon Hill and City Hall officials start raining down, get ready to go through all this again.
<
p>This is the first inning, guys.
Pajamas Media conducted a poll and it didn’t really receive any mainstream attention either.
<
p>Daily Kos does polls but are they respected beyond the liberal blogosphere?
<
p>Do you think a Huffington Post, Daily Caller, or Daily Beast poll would be treated differently?
Kos didn’t do the poll. He paid a respected national pollster, R2K, to do the poll. They’ve got a long history of good polling.
<
p>He also makes the crosstabs public, so if you disagree on the D/I/R makeup, the seniors/late_middle/younger/20s makeup, you can re-weigh it yourself.
<
p>The PJMedia poll was done by a firm with no history, but run by folks with very strong ties to GOP action.
<
p>If you can’t see the difference, it’s because you’re yet another GOP sheep conjuring false equivalences.
Even though I am a GOP sheep, BAAAAAAH BAAAAAAH, I am well aware of what goes on at BMG and realize they did the poll.
<
p>I was asking a non partisan question: When have political polls conducted by blogs (left, right, purple, fish, whatever) received traction in the mainstream/old media?
<
p>I can’t think of any instances off the top of my head. Maybe you, the esteemed readers of BMG (and occasionally RMG) could help answer my question.
<
p>I believe if we conducted a poll the response would be the same from the local mainstream press. The Old Media still isn’t quite sure what to make of blogs. They’re just not there yet when it comes to acceptance of us.
<
p>
how dare you, David, think the media should actually know things and do research and call people on their bullshit. Why the very idea would be preposterous! The media nowadays is just supposed to print or allow for whatever anyone says, regardless of whether it’s true or not, for it’s not the media’s responsibility to actually find the truth of the matter. Emily Rooney is just one of the best practitioners of this new-fangled skool of journalism in Boston.
<
p>Really, David, you should praise Rooney for her ignorance and unwillingness to call her guests on their lies and deceit, because doing so would be so very inconvenient and impolitic. Well, except when Democrats do it, because then that’s an interesting media story, which should be covered 24/7, especially if it has to do with drapes and/or blow jobs.
<
p>/sarcasm off
<
p>David — in terms of answering your actual question, I’m going to answer it with another question: Why don’t you (or Bob or Charley or some combination of you three) write a letter or op-ed to the Globe and ask why? This is a very worthy topic. I suspect that it doesn’t just have to do with the fact that Suffolk’s poll showed Brown ahead — I suspect it also has to do with the fact that you’re a blog and Suffolk isn’t. Unless you call the local MSM on its BS, loudly and clearly, so they all look like a bunch of tools and risk losing costumers, they won’t change their practices.
Though no mention that you guys sponsored the Research 2000 poll.
I don’t care about the credit. Much. 😉 The main thing is to get the info out there. Glad WBZ had them both.
They had Coakly on, asking about polls. She cited the Globe poll, and then the BMG poll (by that name). Explained that SHE was consistently doing well, and Brown veered up and down. Asked if she was worried about the race, she replied, “Noooo, NOOoooo…we’re doing just fine”. Carl Cameron THEN went on to cite the additional “R-2000” poll as if it were another favorable poll. So you get a two-fer. Heard this same story 2-3 times driving to Maine.
<
p>(Psst…David…the woman is an IDIOT!!!! When there’s ANY ambiguity you ASK! IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR YOU, YOU ASK THEM – NOT JUST DEPEND ON SURROGATES AND PHONE BANKS BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO COOL TO DEIGN TO BEG THE HOI POLLOI!!!
<
p>She was handed a SILVER PLATTER to say, “Carl, I’m working hard, but I have to fight for this seat….so I ask – I PERSONALLY ask – everyone listening to PLEASE VOTE FOR ME next Tuesday. I can only win with YOUR help!” Note on her commercials she only says to vote? But not for HER?)
Zero me all you want, my friend, but every poster on BMG knows what I’m saying it true – Martha Coakly is an arrogant candidate of monumental proportions.