Prole polls
I just saw something interesting... something I see too much of lately. Numerous news sources (including Google News) quote the CBC as reporting "Poll averages put Bush ahead". But if you follow the link, you're taken to a news item titled "Polls show U.S. election close":
The article does go on to state that the average of the last 9 polls puts Bush in the lead. However it also states that the percentage who support Bush has been dropping steadily over time (yea, for like 3 years now).
But in our soundbite culture, so many people are going to just read the headline that says Bush is winning. I see, almost daily, news items whose headlines state the opposite of their contents... not just twist the facts, we're talking fucking macramé here. I really doubt this is representative of some lapse in journalistic education in recent years; I suspect it has much more to do with the fact that almost all of this country's news sources are owned by people like Rupert Murdoch (hiss).
What's the point? As usual, one point is that if you think there's such a thing as a 'liberal media' you're a fucktard. Actually, according to recent polls, there's about a 50% chance that you're a fucktard whether you believe in a liberal media or not, though I suspect that the two groups in question are largely coincident.
With only nine days to go before the U.S. presidential election, political polls show that neither President George Bush nor John Kerry has a clear lead.
A Newsweek magazine poll found registered voters were evenly split between the two candidates, with 46 per cent support for each. Two per cent favored Ralph Nader.
The article does go on to state that the average of the last 9 polls puts Bush in the lead. However it also states that the percentage who support Bush has been dropping steadily over time (yea, for like 3 years now).
But in our soundbite culture, so many people are going to just read the headline that says Bush is winning. I see, almost daily, news items whose headlines state the opposite of their contents... not just twist the facts, we're talking fucking macramé here. I really doubt this is representative of some lapse in journalistic education in recent years; I suspect it has much more to do with the fact that almost all of this country's news sources are owned by people like Rupert Murdoch (hiss).
What's the point? As usual, one point is that if you think there's such a thing as a 'liberal media' you're a fucktard. Actually, according to recent polls, there's about a 50% chance that you're a fucktard whether you believe in a liberal media or not, though I suspect that the two groups in question are largely coincident.
0 Comments:
Post a Commentreturn to front page