Media Matters: We don't need the media to tell us who's likable

[DeepModem Mom]

Media Matters for America: "Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Media's assessment of likability doesn't match voters'

Yet again, the political media is obsessed with the question of whether the Democratic presidential nominee is "likable" and whether he can "connect" with "regular people." We go through this every four years. It's a remarkably bad way for journalists to spend their -- and our -- time, but old habits die hard, especially when the alternative is doing some actual reporting.

Voting for president based on who seems the most likable -- or, in the media's favorite shorthand, based on who you would rather have a beer with -- is a spectacularly bad idea....

But that isn't the only reason why journalists shouldn't spend their airtime and column inches pontificating about which candidate is more likable. For better or worse, voters will allow their opinions of the candidates' personalities to have an effect on their vote -- and that isn't an entirely bad thing.

But voters don't need to be told who they like. They can decide that for themselves. They don't need to be told who "connects" with them or does not -- they will feel a connection, or they won't. The pundit class' insistence on talking endlessly about candidates' purported "likability" and ability to "relate" to "regular Americans" is, at best, a waste of time, and the ultimate in pointless horserace journalism. And at worst, it introduces an observer effect, where the view promoted by the media -- the purported observers and chroniclers -- that a candidate has a likability problem with the public becomes inseparable in the public's mind from the candidate's inherent "likability." Not to mention that, if the media talk enough about "likability," the public absorbs the idea that that is a key criterion in judging a candidate's qualifications. In other words, the public hears enough from the media that a candidate is not considered likable by the public, and the public itself begins to view the candidate as less likable.

And then there's the fact that the pundit crowd doesn't have the foggiest idea what they are talking about. They sit around their insular little echo chamber in Washington and New York, prattling on about people in Michigan and Pennsylvania being incapable of liking a candidate who doesn't bowl well or who drinks green tea. And, incredibly, they tell us the candidate is an elitist, even as they make elitist assumptions about the voters.

Needless to say, they're wrong. A lot. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to spot the clues that the pundit class obsession with Barack Obama's purported inability to connect with regular people is misplaced. He is, after all, consistently running ahead of John McCain in the polls. And he did just raise $52 million in one month, with an average contribution of $68. That's a hell of a lot of support from regular people for someone who is supposed to have trouble connecting with regular people....

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807180008?f=h_latest

[bluestateguy]

1. Here we go again

The fact that Obama seems to "connect" quite well with blacks and young people never seems to count for very much with the MSM bobbleheads.

Once again, all must hail and worship the Salt of the Earth: WHITE WORKING CLASS!!!

Yes, every voter in America is a middle aged, white, uneducated, blue collar Catholic male who lives in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. They call them "regular" people -- as if others are irregular. nt

[babylonsister]

6. I think the fact that this is even being mentioned is remarkable compared

to 4 years ago, when we had such a distinguished senator in Kerry who was punked. He was white, salt of the earth, a vet, and got his reputation ripped unfairly. Think about that.

[Canuckistanian]

3. My only test of a candidate

Is whether they'll join me at the salad bar at Applebee's.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806030004

[Kaleko]

5. My, you are strict.

Impossible standards.

[RNdaSilva]

4. The only thing I need from the media are the facts.

Just the facts ma'am...or whomsoever. As Joe Friday might have said.

Sifting through the chaff to glean the facts often takes a little doing.

[depakid]

7. "the pundit crowd doesn't have the foggiest idea what they are talking about."

And that's when they're actually attempting to be honest.

[Voice for Peace]

8. Too many people have lost touch with the ability to feel, and think for themselves

"But voters don't need to be told who they like. They can decide that for themselves. They don't need to be told who "connects" with them or does not -- they will feel a connection, or they won't. "

This confusion starts very young. If we examine our own likes and dislikes, beliefs, most of us will discover that it is largely learned, and not necessarily our own. We are taught from a young age not to trust our own feeling selves, and to trust authorities and 'experts' over our own common sense & preferences.

A lot of unlearning is needed.

[truthisfreedom]

9. McPain is a money-drunk superstitious high-stakes gambler who, as far as I can tell,

can't represent ANY party to save his life.

Who let him run, anyway?

[Cha]

10. We can say for sure the US media doesn't learn

from past mistakes.