Fast response?

[akirlu]

Yesterday morning before leaving for work, I shot the following letter off to NPR, having been irked to the breaking point while brushing my teeth:

To: morning@npr.org
Subject: cokie roberts, "news analyst"

Dear folks-

If you will persist in calling Cokie Roberts a "news analyst," would it be too much to ask that she be required to produce actual analysis, rather than unsubstantiated and unverifiable opinion? Today we hear from Cokie that "a new poll" came out over the weekend showing a Bush lead. What we don't hear is what poll it was, what the numbers were, what the margin of error was, whether the poll counted registered voters or the much more dubious "likely" voters, what the sample size was, what the time span over which the poll was conducted was, whether Nader was included in the poll, what the breakdowns were within the poll, or what and when the previous results of the same poll were (because we all know that comparing different polls to each other is beyond apples and oranges and well into apples and tennis shoes territory, don't we?). In other words, we received no information at all, in any meaningful sense. Certainly no analysis, since there was nothing substantive to analyze in the first place. We can't even evaluate Cokie's pronouncements ourselves, since we don't know what poll she's talking about.

Cokie also blessed us with the knowledge that "polls" are showing Bush with a lead, and "some" with a "significant lead" with no identification of what polls, and what constitutes a significant lead in Cokie Roberts' mind. As information, this is worse than useless. But it did provide Cokie with an opportunity to comment that the Kerry momentum "such as it was," had been stopped. Given that we have been given no facts at all, this shot across the bows of the Kerry campaign looks an awful lot like pro-Bush electioneering, not reporting. Do everyone a favor.Either get Cokie Roberts to do her job in a responsible manner, or let her pay for advertising time like anyone else who wants to broadcast political messages.

Ulrika O'Brien
Redmond, Washington

This morning, I heard them announce two more polls. They named what polls they were. In the case of the NYT poll, they specified that Bush was leading in a poll of likely voters, but that the lead was within the margin of error. I dunno if this is in direct response to my letter, and it only addresses some of my issues, but I'm taking it as a small victory. Keep writing letters, people!

Comments

[the-gardener.livejournal.com]

Go you!

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

You rock.

K. [on my way to DFL headquarters to pick up a few hundred lawn signs]

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

On behalf of those of us who suffer the aggravation in silence, thanks!!!

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

Well, look at this analysis over at Slate, where they think Kerry is whupping Bush.

http://www.slate.com/id/2108322/

[amy-thomson.livejournal.com]

It didn't sound like a whupping to me. It sounds like a perilously close race. Too many of those electoral votes are very, very close.

Here's what makes me optimistic. There's a HUGE upsurge in new voter registrations. I believe that many of these people are motivated to vote because they want a change. There's the whole cell phone gap in the polling, a lot of those are younger voters, who may be more liberal.

On the other hand, as my husband pointed out, there's a lot of conservative mid-westerners who are really pissed off about the whole gay marriage thing. Apparently they're registering in droves too.

*sigh*
At this point, I'm tired of waiting. I want to go on out there and Vote! Vote! Vote!

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah. "Whupping" was an overly-optimistic word to use when "has a chance of beating" is more accurate. I'm a cock-eyed optimist when I'm not a this-is-too-real pessimist.