How Conservative Media Lost to the MSM and Failed the Rank and File
On the biggest political story of the year, the conservative media just got its ass handed to it by the mainstream media. And movement conservatives, who believe the MSM is more biased and less rigorous than their alternatives, have no way to explain how their trusted outlets got it wrong, while the New York Times got it right. Hint: The Times hired the most rigorous forecaster it could find.
It ought to be an eye-opening moment.
I don't find it too surprising that the professional forecasters would get it right as opposed to generally uneducated (at least in the field of statistics) pundits. However I do wonder how so many of them could've gotten it so wrong. One of my main sources for conservative viewpoints when I get tired of only seeing one side of issues in the MSM is PJTV online. I checked out their predictions just before the election and was surprised to see that nearly all of their main commentators were forecasting a Romney win, and most were guessing it would be by a large margin. I was quite disappointed with them and they're going to be eating crow now.
However to throw in the other side of the story, I do believe the media continued to go easy on Obama while hammering Romney
on the smallest details, and this too had an effect on the the election. One clear example of this (imho) was the criticism the Romney campaign faced regarding the lack of details in his plan. Now I'm not saying it wasn't justified; however Obama had much fewer details in 2008 and yet wasn't hammered hard about it. Another example would be the economy; George W. Bush was criticized over the economy in 2004 twice as much as Obama in 2012 even though the economy was much better back then. Other examples would be what appears to be a cover-up on Benghazi, glossing over the Fast and Furious scandal, California's unemployment stats not being included in the latest jobs report, etc. Now I'll freely admit that I don't know how true these stories are; or if if they are, who should shoulder most of the blame; however that's largely because I've hardly heard anything about them from the major media outlets. They aren't doing their job. In addition, some of the largest issues facing America weren't brought to the forefront of the debate; issues such as the NDAA, the Patriot Act, the action in Libya without a declaration of war or congressional approval, etc. These are major issues which were almost entirely avoided throughout the whole election.
thegreekdog wrote:The article is accurate, except when it refers to the conservatives mentioned in the article as the "conservative media." Symm got it right by referring to these people as "conservative pundits." The article lists, for example, Dick Morris, George Will, Michael Barone, Joe Scarborough, Peggy Noonan, and Karl Rove. All of these people are pundits or editorialists, not "reporters." Their ultimate goal is to make a biased argument. He refers to Morris as an "ideological hack" and Noonan as an "anecdotal impressionist." Good adjectives, but evidence that these people are pundits. It's like if we criticize Phatscotty's predictions as woefully inaccurate and identify him as a member of the media.
In any event, the same could be said of the liberal pundits (the Rachel Maddows of the world) on the other side. Except they got it right in the end.
What is troublesome (if you're a conservative) is the blind following the pundits have for Romney. The only "conservative" pundit I listened to that took a more realistic approach to Romney was Mike Church, who most conservatives don't even know. Everyone else was solidly in the bank for Romney. It was like they could hear no criticism. After Romney was nominated, I decided to listen to some conservative talk radio for a couple of days. I heard conservatives call in and get lambasted when they were not supportive of Romney. That's a problem.
I agree with everything you said here. I was pretty surprised when it seemed like all the conservatives jumped on the Romney bandwagon even though he was the last-ditch nominee after every other candidate had been tried and failed. He carried with him a lot of baggage and was a big-government politician same as Obama, and yet many conservatives didn't seem to blink an eye when jumping to support him (we all witnessed the transformation of PS before our very eyes). I personally think a huge opportunity was missed here; when faced with two disappointing presidential candidates, if those dissatisfied with the status quo (especially conservatives, libertarians, and small government advocates as a whole) had thrown their support behind a 3rd party candidate, that could've had a game-changing effect on the next election down the road. Instead, two billions dollars and months of campaigning went down the drain with absolutely no change on the horizon. This election (and the opportunity for change in the next election) was completely wasted. How long must this continue?