A common theme in the MSM coverage of Bush's approval ratings is the negative effect Bush's low ratings will have for Republicans in Congress looking to be reelected. From the Hindustan Times ("Although Bush's job is not on the ballot, his public approval ratings below 40 per cent have undermined his ability to campaign.") to the Carlsbad Current-Argus ("Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said there has never been an election in which a president's approval rating was below 40 percent 'and his party has not lost the 15 seats' that Democrats need to gain control this year. Bush's approval ratings hover in the mid- to high 30s.") and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ("President Bush's approval ratings continue to languish in Wisconsin as they have nationally, the latest statewide polls show. That's a potential drag on GOP candidates in close races in the state."), this has become a dominant MSM story. In this story, approval ratings are given significance beyond merely the public's approval of the president, but still only within the context of understanding public opinion.
On to the opinion of "journalist" Stephen Colbert: "Most of all, I believe in this president. Now, I know there are some polls out there saying that this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don’t pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in “reality.” And reality has a well-known liberal bias." Colbert is implying that the ratings cannot be biased because the approval rating is an assesment of objective reality. However, approval ratings do not claim to measure a president's actual performance. At most, the approval rating may be indicative of the public's perception of approval-worthy performance. Colbert is therefore suggesting that public perception of reality cannot be biased. This is demonstrably untrue, for the public often has biased perceptions. Colbert's conflation of polls with reality is actually a reflection of his own lack of understanding of reality.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"The problem of an eidos in history, hence, arises only when a Christian transcendental fulfillment becomes immanentized. Such an immanentist hypostasis of the eschaton, however, is a theoretical fallacy."-Eric Voegelin
George Will Advice
"I grew up in Champaign, Illinois, midway between Chicago and St. Louis. At an age too tender for life-shaping decisions, I made one. While all my friends were becoming Cardinals fans, I became a Cub fan. My friends, happily rooting for Stan Musial, Red Schoendienst and other great Redbirds, grew up cheerfully convinced that the world is a benign place, so of course, they became liberals. Rooting for the Cubs in the late 1940s and early 1950s, I became gloomy, pessimistic, morose, dyspeptic and conservative. It helped out of course that the Cubs last won the World Series in 1908, which is two years before Mark Twain and Tolstoy died. But that means, class of 1998, that the Cubs are in the 89th year of their rebuilding effort, and remember, any team can have a bad moment. So fellow members of the Class of 1998, my last piece of advice is - Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be Cub fans."
Links
where a tone of careless informality prevails; posts oscillate between the uselessly brief and the uselessly logorrheic; complexity and complication are eschewed; the humor is cringe-making, with irony present only in its conspicuous absence; arguments are solipsistic; writers traffic more in pronouncement than persuasion; PLUS little more than recounting what have become one side's talking points is accomplished
2 comments:
This is very nicely done, and a terrific use of Colbert to illustrate a serious point -- the extent to which we "reify" polls and Public opinion. Sharply observed.
A
Post a Comment