Polls, Pols and Propaganda

Where do journalists, or judges, or politicians get the idea that they know what’s best for the rest of us? Where do any of us get such notions? Why do we look to polls for answers to complex problems, or assume that polls add instant credibility to every issue?

The answer, of course, is because we are addicted to the idea that polls are some kind of a magic modern oracle. But let’s make no mistake: polls are artfully crafted, designed -- and often manipulated -- to present a very specific viewpoint. They are the means to the furtherance of a very specific agenda, and they are just as likely to be used to forge public opinion or to sell a policy position as they are to be used for legitimate illumination.

The truth is, polls are often little more than an extension of what we have been led to believe, and far too infrequently do they represent the fruit of any sort of true intellectual examination. Why should they? How could they? After all, what does Joe Sixpack know about foreign policy, or economics, or global trade? What does Sally Such-and-Such know about fighting a war, or the environment, or world financial markets? The answer is: Only what they’ve been fed, via neat little media packages designed to sway their opinion toward the (left-wing) conclusion that the (left-wing) MSM wants them to have.

Politicians -- and more than a few of their constituents -- prefer to govern by polls: It is far easier to rely on “group think” and point to a poll result than to think critically and address a difficult issue logically and rationally. Who needs to be an expert on anything when we have a consensus? Instead of thoughtful dialogue about real problems and real solutions, stump speeches are instead littered with references to what pollsters say “the people” want. Thus, what the voters hear is essentially: “Re-elect me and I will (insert what the polls are saying you want me to do).”

This is how complex, intertwined issues are boiled down to sound bites and headlines, and how the resulting public (and very often ignorant) opinion is then used to drive (very often flawed) public policy. Incredible, isn’t it?

Mark Alexander, publisher of The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us), has probably captured the essence of how the MSM uses opinion polls as propaganda more concisely and with more dead-on accuracy than anyone else on the planet (with apologies to Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center). If you’ve ever wondered just what in the world is going on with a particular issue, and how we’ve come to find ourselves in the predicaments we sometimes find ourselves in, as a society, his take on what he calls “pollaganda” will provide some insight. To wit, from the Patriot Post editorial dictionary:

Pollaganda — n. 1. mainstream media (MSM) polling used to manipulate public opinion and advance a particular bias. 2. Outcome-based polling; instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome, which can be used to manipulate public opinion by advancing the perception that a particular issue, individual or group has a majority of public favor or disfavor. 3. A dezinformatsia (disinformation) campaign of political polling used for propaganda, polling masquerading as "objective journalism" designed to advance a liberal bias.

Pollagandize — v. 1. To engage in pollaganda. 2. To utilize instruments of pollaganda, or selective poll reporting (reporting polls that comport with a particular ideological viewpoint), to advance a liberal bias.

Pollaganda Cycle — n. A self-perpetuating cycle — the intentional and systematic propagation of MSM polls to manipulate public opinion by first saturating viewers with "reporting" that reflects a particular bias; second, conducting public opinion polls in concert with like-minded organizations or campaigns, which will reflect that bias; third, further proselytizing viewers by treating these poll results as "news"; and fourth, using pollaganda to induce "bandwagon psychology" (the human tendency of those who do not have a strong ideological foundation to aspire to the side perceived to be in the majority), thus further driving public opinion toward the original media bias, ad infinitum.

Mr. Alexander writes that “most polls reflect intentional propagation of a particular bias by Leftmedia television and print outlets to manipulate public opinion. They accomplish this by first indoctrinating viewers with ‘reporting’ that reflects a particular bias, then conducting ‘opinion polls’ which, of course, reflect that indoctrination.” He also argues that there is a “Leftmedia conspiracy to undermine anything conservative; the bias itself is largely the consequence of the mass-media zeitgeist and culture, which are uniformly and profoundly left of center. Such liberalism has become so embedded within the collective consciousness of print copywriters and television talkingheads that it flows freely from every front page and broadcast.”

Is this surprising? Not really, when you consider that any number of academic studies that assess the political views of national reporters in the major press pools of Washington and New York conclude that those reporters overwhelmingly self-identify as "liberal" or "Democrat." In fact, only eight percent of those reporters said they would consider voting for a conservative.

OK, so we see that the possibility exists for bias among the journalists at some of the largest newspapers in America. But would these paragons of virtue let their personal feelings, thoughts and experiences cloud their judgment and color their perception of issues and events (as people do, from every other walk of life, in every other occupation)? But how could they get it done? How could they present “news,” filtered through their liberal worldview, without appearing to compromise their journalistic integrity?

It becomes easier to imagine once you understand that they are writers; it’s what they do. They know how to use words to get your attention, to craft a compelling story, and to shape opinion. And their editors, long of tooth and schooled in the fine arts of the subtle and the sublime, know just how far to go. Not only that, but the fact that they have been able to get away with it for so long has led them to believe that they are smarter than Joe Sixpack and Sally Such-and-Such. (Sadly, but inevitably, most of the Joes and Sallys believe that journalists are smarter, too.)

There are lots of little things the MSM likes to do to subtly promote their agenda. Have you ever noticed headline (and copy) placement? Have you ever noticed, for example, how polls that support Democrat candidates are placed above the fold in lead stories, while polls that are favorable to Republican candidates are below the fold and mentioned only in a negative or unfavorable context?

Here’s another example, from Patriot Post Volume 06 Number 19, published May 12th, 2006 (emphasis mine):

“On Wednesday morning (May 10th) The New York Times' top headline was, ‘Poll Gives Bush His Worst Marks Yet.’ In the first paragraph, the writer notes, ‘Americans have a bleaker view of the country's direction than at any time in more than two decades, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Sharp disapproval of President Bush's handling of gasoline prices has combined with intensified unhappiness about Iraq to create a grim political environment for the White House and Congressional Republicans. Mr. Bush's approval ratings for his management of foreign policy, Iraq and the economy have fallen to the lowest levels of his presidency.’”

“To be fair, the last paragraph of this 1,480 word Bush-bashing diatribe includes this tidbit: ‘Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush's opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election. And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics.’" In other words, with all of the favorable MSM coverage Kerry and Gore get, Bush still comes out on top. Perhaps The Times should have headlined this article ‘Bush more popular than Kerry or Gore.’”

This is classic media manipulation. Try this little game: Read the headlines, then jot down a thought or two about your general impression of what the story will be about. Read the first paragraph or two, or three, and see if your initial impression holds true (it probably will). Now, finish reading the story, with an eye out for anything at all that seems incongruent with your initial assessment. Hint: Things which contradict or detract from the writer’s worldview is usually buried at or near the end of the piece; giving it less prominence provides the appearance of it having less importance in the “grand scheme of things.”

In addition to headlines, there’s also the matter of where a story appears within the newspaper itself. The Los Angeles Times opined that “Bush may be the first 'A4' president: entirely comfortable repeating familiar arguments for his proposals, even if that means appearing on an inside page of the newspaper's front section, such as Page A4, that attracts far less attention than Page 1." A4? That’s not bad for a Republican POTUS in a liberal newspaper. But the perks are even better if you’re a Democrat (or the son of a Democrat) who gets into trouble: When Al Gore’s 17-year-old son, Albert Gore III, was arrested for driving 100 mph, The New York Times ran eight sentences on his arrest on page 18; The Washington Post, eight sentences on Page 6; the Los Angeles Times, nine sentences on Page 10; and USA Today, a three-sentence item in a roundup column. Contrast that with the prominent column inches that were dedicated to the Bush daughters drinking beer.

There’s also “the label game.” A few years ago, a Media Research Center study on ideological labeling in the media found that, on ABC, conservatives received 79% of the “liberal” or “conservative” labels; on NBC, 80%. On the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, 82% of the 353 ideological labels assigned by CBS's reporters were given to conservatives. Only eight House Members were identified as liberals, compared with 34 who were called conservatives. Why the disparity? Are liberals so rare, or difficult to spot, that those in the MSM can’t properly identify them? Or is there a dearth of conservatives?

The truth is that any basic, intellectually honest examination of how the MSM does business will expose the fact that they aren’t exactly hiding their bias. If you finished Junior High school, you should be able to spot it straight away. If you’re paying attention.

Speaking of media, let’s not forget another big player in the propaganda game: Hollywood.

For obvious reasons (see FDR’s “New Deal” and the Works Progress Adminstration) the majority of the "creative community" has aligned itself with liberal idealism, and that partnership naturally colors much of the "entertainment" presented to the general public. For example, shortly after the 2000 election the good folks who brought us "South Park" launched a new show called "That's My Bush!" about, you guessed it, George W. Bush. He was portrayed as a lovable goofball who managed to somehow get by in spite of himself. It's safe to say that Timothy Bottoms playing a befuddled POTUS is a far cry from having John Travolta portraying a suave and calculating Bill Clinton in "Primary Colors."

Nobody likes to pat themselves on the back like Hollywood. There are dozens of "Awards Shows," and at almost any one of them there is a 100% chance that at some point during the ceremonies one celebrity or another will show how clever they are by making fun of conservatives. The question is: When was the last time you heard someone in show biz take a crack at a Democrat? In Hollywood, that would be like dissing the Prom King.

As the masters of “pop culture,” the movers and shakers of Hollywood believe that they have more influence than they actually do. Still, that influence isn’t inconsequential when it is added to that of the MSM. The resultant cacophony of liberal groupthink -- scattered, yet enjoined by a shared playbook against a common enemy -- can (and too often does) overwhelm the mediums through which we view our day-to-day lives. Consider the “War on Terror” taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. How have the Left portrayed this struggle between the forces of Good and Evil? If we go back forty years, to the Vietnam War, we can find a classic example of the media’s use of propaganda in a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo: South Vietnamese Police Chief, Brigadier General Nguyen Ndoc Loan, was photographed on the streets of Saigon shooting what appears to be a civilian in the head. What wasn’t widely distributed with the photo was the fact that the “civilian” was a Viet Cong Colonel who had been captured just after killing a close personal friend of the police chief’s and murdering his entire family.

Edmund Burke is credited with coining the term “The Fourth Estate,” saying of the media “Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in lawmaking, in all acts of authority.” This effect is most obvious when the MSM unites on a particular issue – such as virtually any foreign or domestic policy or agenda being pursued by a Republican administration (the same can be seen when they champion Democratic causes). What is important, here, is the effect upon the citizenry when the opinion of the MSM is the only voice that is heard, endlessly recycled, over and over again. Do you think it has any effect?

In the end, polls are an important part of the self-perpetuating MSM propaganda machine, each one feeding off of the other. The reality is that what polling organizations are really doing, by and large, is measuring the media's effectiveness at indoctrinating readers and TV viewers with opinion-shaping propaganda. We see the results of it every day.

I suppose we should be grateful that liberals don’t have a stranglehold on our education system, or the full backing and financial support of every labor union in the land, or we’d be in really big trouble…

REFERENCES & ADDITIONAL READING

“Bias” by Bernard Goldberg
The Media Research Center
http://www.patriotpost.us/
“U.S. Military Defeats Fourth Estate” by Douglas MacKinnon, 1/7/08

See also: ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MTV, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, the Associated Press, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, the AFL-CIO, Teacher’s Unions, the American Bar Association, AARP, and Hollywood.