Friday, November 9, 2012

Mandate Or No Mandate? Different Standards For Different Parties - Fair & Accuracy In Reporting

In 2004, George W. Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote over Democrat John Kerry, and had a 286-251 edge in electoral votes. Many media outlets proclaimed that to be a "mandate."  So this week Barack Obama won re-election; before the Florida results were final, he had a 303-206 electoral vote advantage and 50.5% of the popular vote. What do you call that? For a lot of people in the media, definitely not a mandate.

On CBS Evening News (11/7/12), Bob Schieffer declared, "In the hard world of American politics, the president did not get a mandate yesterday." On the NPR website (11/7/12), a headline was "For Obama, Vindication, But Not a Mandate." The Washington Post's Dan Balz (11/7/12) called it "an uncertain mandate, although Obama will attempt to claim one." While USA Today declared Bush's 2004 victory a mandate, the front-page of the paper the day after the election bore the headline "A Nation Moving Further Apart."

Time magazine's Joe Klein (11/7/12) declared that "the election was a mandate for moderation." He added: "The last month of Mitt Romney‘s campaign, when he rushed to the center and suddenly made it a race, ratified the real will of the people: a sensible centrism that runs deeper than the over-caffeinated bluster that seems to dominate the media. The election hinted that the third rail of American politics--the certain death that comes to those who question entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare--is beginning to lose its juice."

So the "will of the people" is for politicians to enact policies that are deeply unpopular?!?

It is a curious notion the media is putting forth: that the politician who wins an election should quickly move to satisfy voters who did not support his agenda. But for many in corporate media, that is what centrism is all about -- when the politician is a Democrat.

The full article is available here