Irrelevant
by digby
Last year at the Democratic convention, I was on a panel with Jonathan Alter in which he oddly asserted that people don't pay attention to what's said in the media. I asked him where he thought they got their information and he said "from each other." I found that somewhat interesting coming from a journalist, needless to say.
There's a weird propensity among villagers to think that they don't affect public opinion, that it just exists out there in a vacuum and can be gauged separate and apart from what's being reported. Ruth Marcus was on MSNBC earlier and she said this:
I think any time a politician is complaining about the media it means they have a bigger problem. [smirking] And certainly when Barack Obama starts complaining about his media coverage, you might have a little question about that, since he's actually gotten fairly good media coverage throughout his rather meteoric career.
Look, I would not look at the media coverage and I would also not look at the town hall meetings as a gauge of the public mood, but I would look at the polls ...
Now, I happen to think looking at the polls is probably a good thing in this case (see below) because they are actually showing that there is a decline in base support, which is important to acknowledge (although I won't hold my breath for Marcus to do so.) But that is likely happening because by all appearances, Obama looks to be willing to cave to the teabaggers --- and the media are kvelling about the good news.
The idea that the media and the teabaggers have nothing to do with the poll results is just cracked. Are people making their judgments based on some dream they had? Some conversation with a stranger? They are getting their information somewhere, and call me nuts, but I would guess it's mostly from newspapers and television (and to a small extent blogs.)
The teabaggers have been dramatically in the news for the past few weeks and Obama's poll numbers have taken a hit. I certainly don't believe that it's because everyone agrees with the teabaggers, but it's insane to think that the news coverage of it, and the health care debate in the media, hasn't had an effect.
I guess this is the MSM's way of avoiding responsibility, but what it really shows is that they don't take their jobs seriously and, therefore, they shouldn't be surprised to be losing market share to those who do. They certainly shouldn't be angry when they are declared to be irrelevant, since they themselves are the ones who say it the most.
Update: Here's Jamison Foser with the facts on this. read 'em and weep.