Bill Hemmer hosts FOX News Channel's "Democracy 2022: Election Night" at Fox News Channel Studios on November 08, 2022 in New York City. (Photo: Roy Rochlin/Getty Images)
Pundits Fortunetelling Coverage Over Actual Reporting Poses a Danger to Democracy
Rather than informing voters so they can make decisions in their best interests at the ballot box, it obscures the most important issues with its endless guessing games about what those voters want.
Most people who follow corporate news were probably surprised by the midterm election outcomes, which saw Democrats hold far more seats than predicted.
It's worse than useless; this kind of journalism works to shield politicians from accountability.
"Expected Republican Red Wave Now a Ripple," announced USA Today (11/8/22). "Biden Touts Midterm Results as Democrats Defy Expectations, Avoid GOP Blowout," was ABCNews.com's headline (11/9/22). The Washington Post (11/9/22) reported that "few foresaw that Democrats would defy expectations of a 'Red Wave.'"
But whose expectations, exactly, did Democrats defy? It's true that few in the media foresaw these results, despite the extraordinary amount of time and energy they put into prognostications.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank (11/9/22) compiled an illustrative sampling of headlines in the lead up to Election Day that voiced the media consensus, including:
- "Red Tsunami Watch" (Axios, 10/23/22)
- "Why the Midterms Are Going to Be Great for Donald Trump" (CNN.com, 10/26/22)
- "Breaking Down the GOP's Midterm Momentum" (Politico, 10/19/22)
- "Democrats, on Defense in Blue States, Brace for a Red Wave in the House" (New York Times, 10/25/22)
How did the pundits and journalists get it so wrong? Both Milbank and Judd Legum (Popular Information, 11/10/22) point out that, in the wake of Trump's 2016 victory, his overperformance relative to most polls meant conservative polling firms that forecast stronger GOP performance ended up with more accurate predictions. Those firms, including Trafalgar and Rasmussen, aren't fully transparent and don't follow industry standards for data collection. (Nor do they hide their biases: After the 2020 election, Rasmussen invoked Stalin to suggest that Vice President Mike Pence had the power to overturn Biden's victory.) Yet respected aggregation sites like 538 include and rank them quite highly (Trafalgar an A-, Rasmussen a B). The weight given to these outfits was skewing polling averages in the GOP's favor.
But as Legum notes, even if they had gotten it right, prognostication-as-reporting is utterly dysfunctional. Polling is ultimately a guessing game, which means it's often wrong (see FAIR.org, 10/3/22), and it takes space and resources away from the kinds of substantive coverage that would be actually useful:
Prediction-based coverage comes at a high cost because it crowds out the coverage that voters actually need. To make an informed decision, voters need to know the practical impact of voting for each candidate.
In the case of the 2022 midterms, if Republicans regain control of the House, they will use the threat of a global economic collapse to try to force benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare. We don't have to speculate about this. We know it is true because Republican leaders have said it publicly. But, as Popular Information previously reported, major publications almost completely ignored the potential impact of the election on Social Security and Medicare.
The political media has substituted polling analysis, which is something only people managing campaigns really need, for substantive analysis of the positions of the candidates, something that voters need.
Horse race election coverage is nothing new, of course; reporting on polls and tactics in place of substantive issues is corporate media's bread and butter (see, e.g., FAIR.org, 10/14/08; Extra!, 11/14). It generates clicks from anxious election watchers without risking charges of bias, whereas seriously talking about the issues would almost inevitably expose how far candidates are from truly representing most people's interests--and some more so than others.
Prediction coverage takes political journalism and flips it on its head: Rather than informing voters so they can make decisions in their best interests at the ballot box, it obscures the most important issues with its endless guessing games about what those voters want.
It's worse than useless; this kind of journalism works to shield politicians from accountability. And in this political moment, it's even more dangerous than that: Setting false expectations is part of the GOP strategy for credibly claiming election fraud. When Republican pollsters release results that suggest they can't lose, Republican voters are primed to disbelieve any losses that happen. And when even "liberal" media enable those false expectations, it lends credibility to those election fraud claims.
While in the vast majority of races this year, GOP candidates appear to be conceding without a fight, in 2024, with a presidential race on the line and hundreds of deniers firmly ensconced in Congress, results that don't go the GOP's way could come under a much stronger challenge. And news outlets' substitution of fortunetelling for substantive reporting could become more consequential than ever.
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Most people who follow corporate news were probably surprised by the midterm election outcomes, which saw Democrats hold far more seats than predicted.
It's worse than useless; this kind of journalism works to shield politicians from accountability.
"Expected Republican Red Wave Now a Ripple," announced USA Today (11/8/22). "Biden Touts Midterm Results as Democrats Defy Expectations, Avoid GOP Blowout," was ABCNews.com's headline (11/9/22). The Washington Post (11/9/22) reported that "few foresaw that Democrats would defy expectations of a 'Red Wave.'"
But whose expectations, exactly, did Democrats defy? It's true that few in the media foresaw these results, despite the extraordinary amount of time and energy they put into prognostications.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank (11/9/22) compiled an illustrative sampling of headlines in the lead up to Election Day that voiced the media consensus, including:
- "Red Tsunami Watch" (Axios, 10/23/22)
- "Why the Midterms Are Going to Be Great for Donald Trump" (CNN.com, 10/26/22)
- "Breaking Down the GOP's Midterm Momentum" (Politico, 10/19/22)
- "Democrats, on Defense in Blue States, Brace for a Red Wave in the House" (New York Times, 10/25/22)
How did the pundits and journalists get it so wrong? Both Milbank and Judd Legum (Popular Information, 11/10/22) point out that, in the wake of Trump's 2016 victory, his overperformance relative to most polls meant conservative polling firms that forecast stronger GOP performance ended up with more accurate predictions. Those firms, including Trafalgar and Rasmussen, aren't fully transparent and don't follow industry standards for data collection. (Nor do they hide their biases: After the 2020 election, Rasmussen invoked Stalin to suggest that Vice President Mike Pence had the power to overturn Biden's victory.) Yet respected aggregation sites like 538 include and rank them quite highly (Trafalgar an A-, Rasmussen a B). The weight given to these outfits was skewing polling averages in the GOP's favor.
But as Legum notes, even if they had gotten it right, prognostication-as-reporting is utterly dysfunctional. Polling is ultimately a guessing game, which means it's often wrong (see FAIR.org, 10/3/22), and it takes space and resources away from the kinds of substantive coverage that would be actually useful:
Prediction-based coverage comes at a high cost because it crowds out the coverage that voters actually need. To make an informed decision, voters need to know the practical impact of voting for each candidate.
In the case of the 2022 midterms, if Republicans regain control of the House, they will use the threat of a global economic collapse to try to force benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare. We don't have to speculate about this. We know it is true because Republican leaders have said it publicly. But, as Popular Information previously reported, major publications almost completely ignored the potential impact of the election on Social Security and Medicare.
The political media has substituted polling analysis, which is something only people managing campaigns really need, for substantive analysis of the positions of the candidates, something that voters need.
Horse race election coverage is nothing new, of course; reporting on polls and tactics in place of substantive issues is corporate media's bread and butter (see, e.g., FAIR.org, 10/14/08; Extra!, 11/14). It generates clicks from anxious election watchers without risking charges of bias, whereas seriously talking about the issues would almost inevitably expose how far candidates are from truly representing most people's interests--and some more so than others.
Prediction coverage takes political journalism and flips it on its head: Rather than informing voters so they can make decisions in their best interests at the ballot box, it obscures the most important issues with its endless guessing games about what those voters want.
It's worse than useless; this kind of journalism works to shield politicians from accountability. And in this political moment, it's even more dangerous than that: Setting false expectations is part of the GOP strategy for credibly claiming election fraud. When Republican pollsters release results that suggest they can't lose, Republican voters are primed to disbelieve any losses that happen. And when even "liberal" media enable those false expectations, it lends credibility to those election fraud claims.
While in the vast majority of races this year, GOP candidates appear to be conceding without a fight, in 2024, with a presidential race on the line and hundreds of deniers firmly ensconced in Congress, results that don't go the GOP's way could come under a much stronger challenge. And news outlets' substitution of fortunetelling for substantive reporting could become more consequential than ever.
Most people who follow corporate news were probably surprised by the midterm election outcomes, which saw Democrats hold far more seats than predicted.
It's worse than useless; this kind of journalism works to shield politicians from accountability.
"Expected Republican Red Wave Now a Ripple," announced USA Today (11/8/22). "Biden Touts Midterm Results as Democrats Defy Expectations, Avoid GOP Blowout," was ABCNews.com's headline (11/9/22). The Washington Post (11/9/22) reported that "few foresaw that Democrats would defy expectations of a 'Red Wave.'"
But whose expectations, exactly, did Democrats defy? It's true that few in the media foresaw these results, despite the extraordinary amount of time and energy they put into prognostications.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank (11/9/22) compiled an illustrative sampling of headlines in the lead up to Election Day that voiced the media consensus, including:
- "Red Tsunami Watch" (Axios, 10/23/22)
- "Why the Midterms Are Going to Be Great for Donald Trump" (CNN.com, 10/26/22)
- "Breaking Down the GOP's Midterm Momentum" (Politico, 10/19/22)
- "Democrats, on Defense in Blue States, Brace for a Red Wave in the House" (New York Times, 10/25/22)
How did the pundits and journalists get it so wrong? Both Milbank and Judd Legum (Popular Information, 11/10/22) point out that, in the wake of Trump's 2016 victory, his overperformance relative to most polls meant conservative polling firms that forecast stronger GOP performance ended up with more accurate predictions. Those firms, including Trafalgar and Rasmussen, aren't fully transparent and don't follow industry standards for data collection. (Nor do they hide their biases: After the 2020 election, Rasmussen invoked Stalin to suggest that Vice President Mike Pence had the power to overturn Biden's victory.) Yet respected aggregation sites like 538 include and rank them quite highly (Trafalgar an A-, Rasmussen a B). The weight given to these outfits was skewing polling averages in the GOP's favor.
But as Legum notes, even if they had gotten it right, prognostication-as-reporting is utterly dysfunctional. Polling is ultimately a guessing game, which means it's often wrong (see FAIR.org, 10/3/22), and it takes space and resources away from the kinds of substantive coverage that would be actually useful:
Prediction-based coverage comes at a high cost because it crowds out the coverage that voters actually need. To make an informed decision, voters need to know the practical impact of voting for each candidate.
In the case of the 2022 midterms, if Republicans regain control of the House, they will use the threat of a global economic collapse to try to force benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare. We don't have to speculate about this. We know it is true because Republican leaders have said it publicly. But, as Popular Information previously reported, major publications almost completely ignored the potential impact of the election on Social Security and Medicare.
The political media has substituted polling analysis, which is something only people managing campaigns really need, for substantive analysis of the positions of the candidates, something that voters need.
Horse race election coverage is nothing new, of course; reporting on polls and tactics in place of substantive issues is corporate media's bread and butter (see, e.g., FAIR.org, 10/14/08; Extra!, 11/14). It generates clicks from anxious election watchers without risking charges of bias, whereas seriously talking about the issues would almost inevitably expose how far candidates are from truly representing most people's interests--and some more so than others.
Prediction coverage takes political journalism and flips it on its head: Rather than informing voters so they can make decisions in their best interests at the ballot box, it obscures the most important issues with its endless guessing games about what those voters want.
It's worse than useless; this kind of journalism works to shield politicians from accountability. And in this political moment, it's even more dangerous than that: Setting false expectations is part of the GOP strategy for credibly claiming election fraud. When Republican pollsters release results that suggest they can't lose, Republican voters are primed to disbelieve any losses that happen. And when even "liberal" media enable those false expectations, it lends credibility to those election fraud claims.
While in the vast majority of races this year, GOP candidates appear to be conceding without a fight, in 2024, with a presidential race on the line and hundreds of deniers firmly ensconced in Congress, results that don't go the GOP's way could come under a much stronger challenge. And news outlets' substitution of fortunetelling for substantive reporting could become more consequential than ever.