Not-so-subtle Anti-Bush Media Bias

CNN Headline News* is running a report on a poll conducted following last night's presidential speech about immigration reform. The poll showed that a significant majority of people are now favorably impressed with the president's immigration reform proposals, and that the speech effectively and positively changed the perception of many people regarding Bush's approach to the issue.

But what struck me about the report is the apparent unwillingness by CNN to let any positive news about the administration go unchallenged, as the poll's results were presented with this disclaimer (I'm putting this in quotes, although it's being recalled from memory): "These results do not and cannot reflect the opinion of all Americans, as the poll was limited to those who actually watched last night's speech." I can't recall ever hearing a similar disclaimer on other poll results, particularly those which happen to show dissatisfaction with something the administration is doing.

The irony is that the disclaimer actually has the effect of validating the poll, in that they might as well have said, "these results reflect the opinions of the population of Americans who went to the trouble to become informed about the issues addressed by the poll, and thus is more valid than most of our other polls which are conducted at John Kerry's most recent garden party."

*Why do I watch CNNHN? Because Fox can't seem to understand that I'm not interested in 24/7 coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape indictments, or whatever the flashiest crime du jour happens to be.

Comments

Would be great to know how many people have actually took part in the poll. The CNN might paint a rosy ballpark figure.

Posted by: Marina loves pictures at May 16, 2006 11:48 AM

...not interested in 24/7 coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape indictments...

You mean, they've moved on from the Natalie Holloway investigation?? I can't seem to be content watching any teevee news, for some reason. Funny observation about the new disclaimer though. ;-)

Posted by: Gwynne at May 16, 2006 01:11 PM

You mean, they've moved on from the Natalie Holloway investigation??

Sounds like we're on the same wavelength. Do they really think Americans have an insatiable appetite for these kinds of cases? If they want to give, say, Nancy Grace a timeslot to beat the stuffing out these dead horses, that's fine. Just leave the news slots to, well, news.

Posted by: Eric at May 16, 2006 01:20 PM

Hmmmmmm .... going into NewsCenter and pulling up the rundowns for Monday's six o'clock, ten o'clock ... Natalie Holloway? Nope ... Duke lacrosse? Nope ... Oh! wait, we DID have a poll on Border Troops Proposal ....awww, but NO disclaimer ...

Guess we'll have to try harder, today ... at least we will have to, if we want to be taken seriously, as REAL media ... you know, the kind that provides Eric ample blog-fodder, and Gwynne's never content with ...

:-)

Hmmmmm .... "blog-fodder" .... 'I come to you for help, Don Eric-O, because you are the Blogfodder' ...

:-) :-)

Posted by: Jeff at May 16, 2006 02:43 PM

Jeff - I think we now have a new pen name for Eric!

"Blogfodder" - great!

Posted by: Cowtown Pattie at May 16, 2006 09:43 PM

It sounds like something you'd feed a herd of cows. Blogging cows.

Well, maybe it's appropriate after all.

Posted by: Eric at May 16, 2006 10:08 PM
Post a comment [Take your time...we're in no hurry.]









Remember personal info?