 |
         
|
The results (in detail here) of the Citizens' Media Scorecard of Thursday night's Vice-Presidential debate in St Louis offer hints of one phenomenon that lies behind ideological complaints of media bias.
First, let us stipulate that Rate the Debates is an all-volunteer panel, so its results cannot be scientifically projected to the viewing audience at large as if it were a random sample. Nevertheless there are stark enough differences in the reaction to the debate between partisans of the two candidates that it can offer insights.
On the headline question of who won the debate, the ninety-minute gabfest seemed to do little more than confirm partisans in their already-held opinion: 89% of Barack Obama supporters said Joe Biden won the debate; 80% of John McCain supporters said Sarah Palin won.
This topline statistic appears to be first and foremost an expression of loyalty. Split the debate up into its three component sections--economic policy, social policy, foreign policy--and Biden's margin of victory in each is greater than in the overall ranking. Obama supporters were virtually unanimous that Biden won each section (92%, 96%, 96%); McCain supporters were less knee-jerk loyal in assigning victory to Palin (73%, 84%, 71%).
Go one level more inside the statistics and there is further evidence that McCain partisans were unhappy with how the debate turned out. That is reflected in their assessment of moderator Gwen Ifill. Almost across the board they rated her lower than Obama supporters--on her overall performance, her lack of bias, her seriousness, her intelligence, her plainspokenness and so.
Maybe these negative ratings reflect an assessment of objective anti-Palin animus in Ifill. She can certainly be faulted for not having been upfront about Breakthrough, the book she plans to publish on Inauguration Day, which clearly stands a better chance of being a bestseller if Obama happens to take the oath of office on that day than McCain.
But, given the results of a scientific poll that shows viewers assessing Biden as a clear winner (CNN/Opinion Research 51%-36%), maybe this is an instance of blaming the messenger. In the partisan heat of this election battle, it would be highly unusual for a Palin fan to concede directly that the debate had made her seem less prepared than Biden to be Vice President. It would be much easier to express such disquiet indirectly, by finding fault with the way Ifill conducted the contest instead.
Ifil conducted the debate as if it were between two parties who were equal minds , similar in background and education and experience, which they were not.
The claimed objectivity of the terms of the debate therefore may be seen as harbouring a concealed aim, that of of diminishing Palin in public, by exposing her to an unfavourable comparison without mediation or qualification.
If this were a widespread perception of the terms of the engagement Ifil used this may cause a blue collar reaction of support for Palin- post debate, her very lack of depth and inarticulateness holding a mirror for those who feel excluded from public life by glib wordsmiths,any ridicule in the press resulting from her gauche performance may then be interpreted as evidence that she represents a working class position which was deliberately set up to be mocked and the whole debacle could still, weirdly, work in Palins favour. It could be that the 51% are vocal, engaged supporters anyway and 36% of an electorate who do usually engage is a good result, but that would be weird science.
You must be logged in to this website to leave a comment. Please click here to log in so you can participate in the discussion.
