I find it ironic when in a post titled “Myth of the Stupid Voter,” an example of voter stupidity is highlighted. In this case, the writer chides the conception that the average person is not very clued in to politics (pointing the finger at liberals in particular):
The unspoken premise made by many of us is that the American voter is stupid and easily misled. This is a prevelant attitude taken by both sides but especially liberals who have been whining for years that conservatives have “fooled” the American people into voting against their economic interests.
We’ll ignore the political science (among other) research that show that people are shockingly ill-informed about relevant political or geographical details (names of political leaders, location of Iraq). As much as an ideal world in the minds of many would be filled by fully informed voters, it isn’t really critical to the functioning of society. High information status is a necessary division of labor in most cases. The real payoff is the example the author uses.
Citing a survey that finds 49% think Obama is favored by the media while 13% think McCain is favored (24% think the media is unbiased), Mr. Moran says:
This survey by Rasmussen should be an eye opener for those who beleive the American voters is too stupid to see through the bias being shown by the media toward Obama.
This is absurd for a few reasons. First I suppose is that it is a horribly written sentence with bad grammar, typos and unclear meaning, though context suggests he feels voters are smart to see through a claim of impartiality to spot a pro-Obama bias. That Obama is favored by the media is the popular conception, it is even one the media itself seems to embrace. It is hardly an act of wisdom for the public to accept the conventional wisdom. Secondly, and what makes it ironic, is that the near majority of people are wrong (or to use his term, stupid) in sensing a pro-Obama bias. As I laid out here, when you look at how various scandals and faux-scandals have been covered, the degree to which policy positions and shifts have been scrutinized, and the fact that Obama is seen as lacking depth, being only good at pretty words, while John McCain is still seen as a maverick and straight-talker despite abandoning pretty much every position that strays from Republican dogma, it is fairly absurd not to recognize a pro-McCain bias.
I don’t blame the people for incorrectly interpreting media bias. Within their natural time constraints, the media is the ready source for most of their information on these issues. The blame again stands with the media who DO have a certain responsibility to be informed and accurate. They are part of the division of labor that does merit being high information. So when the media is wrong, they do deserve our condescension, unlike the average voter.
P.S. To avoid the claim that I shouldn’t point out the bad grammar of others when using bad grammar myself, I will acknowledge that media is a plural word, however, in this sense, I am using it as a single collective, much as we treat the plural United States as a singular entity. I am fine with looser, colloquial language, provided it make sense. Mr. Moran however does not make sense.
ETA: Here is coverage of a study that shows the coverage is indeed more against Obama in tone, even if it focuses on him far more.
