Jennifer Rubin of WaPo is frustrated with tomorrow’s news reporting and has an alternate proposal:
Now imagine if, as the mainstream media did when the New York Times released a poll showing Biden trailing in five of six key battleground states (improbably showing Biden leading among 18- to 29-year-olds by only one point and trailing among 30- to 44-year-olds), the media blanketed the airwaves and splashed these findings over the front pages for days on end. We would see headlines such as: “Biden rebounds with young voters!” and “Trump lead collapses!”
Cable TV panels would explain how Trump’s fascist references, his threats directed at judges and cozying up to Russian President Vladimir Putin were finally backfiring. We’d hear that Bidenomics, far from being a political dud, was not only an economic winner but a political tour de force. Vice President Harris’s “Fight for our Freedoms College Tour” in seven states had ignited enthusiasm among young people, more than proving her value to the ticket, pundits would explain.
Then we would have a raft of “Republicans panic” stories in which Republicans confessed they knew Trump was a disaster but had no way of offloading him. Republican donors would be quizzed about their reluctance to give money to someone “losing” the race. Republicans would fret over the lack of a “Plan B.” Republican consultants would bemoan the failure of the “age issue” to damage Biden. Leaks from the Trump camp would explain that the candidate had gone into an emotional tailspin. (Maybe even stopped eating?) And this would go on for days and days, coloring virtually all coverage of the campaign.
Or, in other words, Big Polling has a grip on the news? Emerson College or Siena College brays out a poll that shows discontent a year out on a Presidential election, before the incumbent has really begun messaging, and it’s treated seriously.
One has to wonder how much money is influencing the direction of reporting. Polling, after all, is, to some extent, synthetic news, estimates of the inclinations of voters long before most have made up their minds. The news is the polling process; the results, not so interesting or important. But if the news organizations can sell it, then they fill their pages with it. It’s cheap news, because it’s delivered to their doors, rather than having to chase it down, and cheap punditry.
But what if news organizations weren’t measured by dollars profit, but by accuracy and insight and trustworthiness? Would year-early polls still fill the pages?
Or, as Rubin wishes, coverage of issues and positions?
