Tea Party vs Occupy Movement - Boston Herald's Confusing Take

The Media’s Guide to Protestors - Image Credit: William Warren via Liberty Features (2011)

Tea Party vs Occupy Movement - Boston Herald's Confusing Take

Over the weekend, the Boston Herald posted an article that tried to make the case of commonality between the Tea Party Movement and the Occupy (wherever) Movement. The proposition that the article tried to make from a national poll with 1,005 American adults (no background on demographic ... assume random) was that people were becoming tired of public political activism.

While the title of the article delivered a direct comparison and linkage of the Occupy Movement to the Tea Party Movement, the first five paragraphs were devoted to the Occupy Movement, the next three paragraphs were devoted to the Tea Party Movement, and the balance of the analysis placed the two movements side-by-side with the conclusion as follows:

This excerpted and edited from the Boston Herald -

Thumbs down for Occupy, Tea Party in new nationwide poll
By Joe Battenfeld - Originally posted November 6, 2011

The Occupy Wall Street movement may be starting to lose its luster with the American public, with four in ten now saying they have an unfavorable view of the protests, a new nationwide UMass Lowell/Boston Herald poll shows.
----
But the UMass Lowell/Herald poll shows one clear trend — that Americans have a more negative view of the Tea Party movement than the Wall Street protests.
----
More than 71 percent of all American adults have an unfavorable impression of the federal government, including 72 percent of Occupy Wall Street supporters and 86 percent of Tea Party sympathizers. And about three-quarters of all Americans say that political action committees and large corporations have too much influence in politics.

This indicates the most successful strategy for winning office in 2012 would be running against both Washington and Wall Street — a strategy already being tested in Massachusetts by Democratic Senate challenger Elizabeth Warren and the current incumbent, Republican Sen. Scott Brown.

But while Tea Party and Occupy supporters may share some views, they don’t have much else in common, according to the UMass Lowell/Herald poll.

Nearly two-thirds of Tea Party sympathizers describe their political views as conservative, while just 14 percent of Occupy Wall Street backers call themselves conservative.

A third of those who have a favorable view of the Occupy movement say they are liberals, while just 5 percent of Tea Party backers describe themselves as liberal.
[Reference Here]

The following poll was featured in the sidebar on the right side of the Boston Herald article:

Herald Pulse

Where do you stand on the Occupy and Tea Party movements?

27% - Occupy campers annoy me
14% - I back what Occupy has to say
7% - The Tea Party annoys me
36% - I’m all for what the Tea Party stands for
4% - I like them both
12% - I dislike them both

Total Votes: 2,018

What if the poll answer choices were arranged a little differently as in like-with-like questions:

Positive
36% - I’m all for what the Tea Party stands for
14% - I back what Occupy has to say

Negative
7% - The Tea Party annoys me
27% - Occupy campers annoy me

General Attitude
4% - I like them both
12% - I dislike them both

When arranged in this way, one comes away with a completely different picture of the attitudes of the two thousand plus Boston Herald reader respondents.

For those having a positive view of either approach, just add "I like them both at 4%" to the affirmative question posed for each movement.

For those having a negative view of either approach, just add "I dislike them both at 12%" to the negative question posed for each movement.

Tea Party Movement
Positive - 40% / Negative - 26%
(66% response attention)

Occupy Movement
Positive - 18% / Negative - 39%
(57% response attention)

Last Comparison
TP Positive - 40% | OM Negative - 39% = 79% similar attitude camp

OM Positive - 18% | TP Negative - 26% = 44% similar attitude camp

Sorry, it just seems that the Boston Herald has its focus on the wrong set of information numbers and thereby performs a disservice to its readers with the conclusions they choose to highlight and put forward. The media seems bent on using polls to shape opinion as opposed to inform opinion.

Why doesn't the Boston Herald look at their own reader respondent poll which seems to be as vetted and directed (with twice as many responses - over 2,000) as the poll they used for the development of the original article that ultimately tries to paint the Senate seat contest between Democratic Senate challenger (OM attitude camp) Elizabeth Warren and the current incumbent, Republican Sen. (TP attitude camp) Scott Brown as ... wait for it ... a toss-up.

A deeper look at the sidebar poll seems to suggest a different projected outlook.



<Article first appeared as Tea Party vs Occupy Movement - Boston Herald's Confusing Take at Technorati>

NY Times & McCain – Secures Expected "Flatline" Response

John McCain and his wife Cindy refute a critical story in The New York Times at a press conference in Toledo, Ohio, Thursday. Image Credit: AP Photo

NY Times & McCain – Secures Expected "Flatline" Response

Nobody really thinks that the New York Times … or any mainstream newspaper … actually pursues reporting (just the facts) or working in a professional journalistic manner any more. Especially on topics that involve the Government and Politics. What the MSM has trouble doing is separating the liberal, socialist agenda biases and activism with the job of providing useful information based upon true investigative and written journalistic ethics.

John McCain is a target for the New York Times because he holds his attitude and character out to be hallmarks of un-impeachable behavior.

The New York Times sat on this “story” until now because John McCain, for the first time just this last week, took off after the Democrats in their bid to become the preferred candidate for the office of President of the United States.

It is the opinion here, at MAXINE, that the New York Times wanted to place the first “brush back” move on John McCain in order to have him shrink back into his familiar “Maverick” territory and move back to his more liberal center positions.

Again, this week, on the campaign stump, John McCain began to position himself with a little more of the conservative base perspective when he spoke against the prospects of a Democrat controlled Presidency. What better way to have John McCain become more beatable than to have him become more supporting of liberal policies of the Democrat Party? By hitting McCain and smearing his character, McCain will go back to being more McCain like! If all we have is liberal policies and agendas to vote for … WHY NOT JUST VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT – or not vote at all.

When John McCain came out for his first news conference in front of reporters to answer questions, what we were treated to was a flatline response from John McCain. It was DEAD and without passion … one word responses without a clear indignation of the tactics of the New York Times. He was agitated, but without edge.

It is just this motive and response from John McCain we think the New York Times has moved this week with this smear story against John McCain.

The NYT got exactly what they wanted without much of a mark on them because this is what WE, the reading public, come to expect.

John McCain, left, and Vicki Iseman. Published reports later suggested a possible relationship between Ms. Iseman and John McCain. Both have denied it. Image Credit: Getty Images

This excerpted from CBS Broadcasting –

McCain: Reports Of Relationship 'Not True'
Reports Question His Relationship With Lobbyist Vicki Iseman
TOLEDO, Ohio (CBS)

John McCain denied a romantic relationship with a female telecommunications lobbyist and said a report by The New York Times suggesting favoritism for her clients is "not true."

"I'm very disappointed in the article. It's not true," the likely Republican presidential nominee said as his wife, Cindy, stood alongside him during a news conference called to address the matter.

McCain described the woman in question, lobbyist Vicki Iseman, as a friend.

The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other before to his failed presidential campaign in 2000. In its own follow-up story, The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with lobbyist Iseman and urged her to stay away from McCain.

Weaver told the Times he arranged the meeting after "a discussion among the campaign leadership" about Iseman.

McCain said he was unaware of any such conversation.

The Arizona senator said he won't allow the report to distract him from his presidential campaign.

"I will focus my attention in this campaign on the big issues and on the challenges that face this country," he said.
----
"This is like the worst kind of tabloid journalism," McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told CBS' The Early Show. "We think it's unfair, unjust and inaccurate."

The published reports said McCain and Iseman each denied having a romantic relationship, and the paper offered no evidence that they had, saying only that aides worried about the appearance of McCain having close ties to a lobbyist with business before the Senate Commerce Committee on which McCain served.

The story alleges that McCain wrote letters and pushed legislation involving television station ownership that would have benefited Iseman's clients.
----
McCain defended his integrity last December, after he was questioned about reports that the Times was investigating allegations of legislative favoritism by the Arizona Republican and that his aides had been trying to dissuade the newspaper from publishing a story.

"I've never done any favors for anybody - lobbyist or special-interest group. That's a clear, 24-year record," he told reporters in Detroit.
Reference Here>>

This updated information from Bill Bradley at PJM's New West Notes -

** A MCCAIN STORY IRONY, AND A BIG CALIFORNIA CONNECTION**

The New Republic has a brand new story on the back story of the New York Times’ publication of the story. Some say the planned New Republic publication prompted the New York Times to publish late yesterday.

The New Republic reports that the Washington bureau chief of the Times, Dean Baquet, played the key managerial role in pushing the story forward, against the skepticism of Times editor Bill Keller.

What the New Republic piece doesn’t say, since it’s written by an Easterner, is that, prior to becoming the Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, Dean Baquet was the managing editor of the Los Angeles Times. And in his role at the LA Times, Baquet was deeply involved with and a key internal advocate of the late-breaking LA Times story during the 2003 California recall slamming Arnold Schwarzenegger.

That story proved to be a major backfire, as Schwarzenegger not only survived but went on to a landslide victory, with most not buying the convenient late timing of the story and its prior awareness by top Democrats. The LA Times and its influence has been on a steep downslope ever since.

I wonder if the McCain story will have a similar effect on the New York Times.
Reference Here>>

You know, when one has a chance to reflect:

That since it is well known that the New York Times editorial staff was “sitting” on this story for several months now (according to the New Republic) and that the paper had just given their formal endorsement as their choice as the Republican Party candidate they would like to see as President (if it had to be a Republican, presumably) just before the Super Tuesday primaries …

… This whole episode of a smear story about John McCain, of eight (8) years ago, published by the New York Times says a lot more about the character of the New York Times than it does about the character of John McCain.

“Facts Don’t Matter” Says The “Leftosphere”

AARP's Divided We Fail Mascot - Please notice which political animal symbol ... and part of the political animal symbol mascot (the head, with brain) has its feet firmly planted on the ground [just the facts]. - Image Credit: AARP

“Facts Don’t Matter” Says The “Leftosphere”

Facts Don’t Matter! - A stunning revelation stated almost in emphatic unison from three of the most respected and read political weblog posters presenting at Blogworld & New Media Expo.

This bold announcement came out at a lightly-attended conference module held as part of the “Political Track” at Blogworld last week.

Image Credit: Edmund Jenks (MAXINE)

The module held Friday, November 9, 2007, in a Las Vegas Convention Center conference room was entitled “Right vs Left: Who’s Winning The Battle Of The Blogosphere?” It featured a discussion panel of six political commentators (three from the conservative viewpoint and three from the liberal, uh, progressive viewpoint).

The “Right vs Left: Who’s Winning The Battle Of The Blogosphere?” panel moderated by Hugh Hewitt. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks (MAXINE)

The members of the panel included on the Right - John Hinderaker (Powerline), Dean Barnett (contributor to TownHall.com, Weekly Standard, & National Review), Henry Copeland (Pressflex, Blogads), and on the Left, Jeralyn Merritt (TalkLeft), Joe Sudbay (AMERICAblog), and Jerome Armstrong (MyDD).

Moderating the discussion panel was radio talkshow host, Hugh Hewitt. He conducted the session using a question / answer approach that allowed panel members to answer each question in rotation. The subject matter was very interesting, the questions posed by Hugh Hewitt were very probative, and the panel members responded with surprising candor.

Midway through the event, audience participation was encouraged intermittently, with questions and additional comments coming from the floor.

Daily KOS Logo - Image Credit: Daily KOS via Wikipedia

Even though the audience for the “Right vs Left: Who’s Winning” session was lightly attended, the members in the audience included some of the most notable political players in the “Blogosphere”, including representatives from Red State and contributors to Pajamas Media. Perhaps the most outspoken audience figure was Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of Daily KOS, who assumed a bit of a role as frequent “admonisher of the moderator” and additional spokesperson for the left.

Pajamas Media podium logo used at the Blogworld & New Media Expo tradeshow floor. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks (MAXINE)

Among the more interesting topics discussed:

1. New Media (NM) and Mainstream Media (MSM) - How can new media superstars be brought together with mainline old media? Or are we looking at an Echo Chamber VS. Monopoly situation?

During this discussion, it was unanimously observed that the Left has a distinct edge over the Right. With only four (4) Rightist bloggers in Washington D.C. and thirty (30) Leftist bloggers, panelists agreed that the Leftist bloggers are better organized and more collaborative, helping the Left to widely communicate its positions. The New Media portal strength of the Drudge Report was also seen as a factor in limiting the growth of Rightist bloggers in D.C.

Panelists seemed to agree that activities of the new media world are distinct, and pointed to the social impact of “blog swarms”, “action alerts” and eventual movement of new issues from the new media world over into the mainstream media world. It was never made clear who the initiator of the message really is … MSM or NM.

Image Credit: Townhall.com & Hugh Hewitt

2. Media’s Treatment of the War in Iraq – A question from the audience was asked, “What about the recent facts on the ground in Iraq? What happens if developments in Iraq go well? Do these facts change or color the effort to pull all of our troops out when it appears we might become victorious for the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq?”

The responses to this question from the audience member were shocking.

First to respond, Jeralyn Merritt stated, in unequivocal terms “Facts Don’t Matter!” The questioner from the audience interjected, “What? Facts don’t matter?” Merritt responded again, “That’s right. Facts Don’t Matter. We want our troops home. Until they are home, the war was just a mistake.”

Hewitt then asked the other members on the panel who were representing the Left, “Do facts matter in Iraq?”

Not only did the other two panelists from the Left (Sudbay and Armstrong) repeat the phrase in agreement, “No, the facts don’t matter”, but Daily KOS founder Markos Zuniga (from the floor) weighed in by repeating the phrase loudly, to the surprise of a few of us in the room. “No. The Facts Don’t Matter.”

The unison was stunning in its word-for-word declaration. This is more than just a talking point. It is a template.

Leftist parties present (on the panel and from the audience) repeatedly stated that 70% of the American populace want the troops out of Iraq and that the US should end the war there now without regard to any other issue.

Image Credit: BlogAds

This event was eye-opening for us at MAXINE. We suspect that the real reason the opinion weblog sites on the Left operate in unison lies in the fact that Mainstream Media is firmly based in promoting Left-of-center political viewpoints. With the MSM as a powerful and centering force, the “Leftosphere” is able to act as an unfettered and undisciplined subset, “MSM.2”.

Further, there is no such thing as an echo chamber for opinions from the Left but with this union, it is more like a megaphone or P.A. effect. The same thoughts and opinions broadcasted and then re-broadcasted through the different mediums.

One of the most disturbing developments of this POV is that on-air news personalities now feel they have to jump into blogging in order to remain relevant. This is a mistake if the MSM news outlets want to be perceived as (just the facts) Real News Outlets! If this catches on, the MSM will become a subset of … your guessed it … ITSELF!

Image Credit: AMERICAblog.com website

The above “Facts Don’t Matter” incident stands as a glaring example of the unfettered and undisciplined nature of the Leftosphere.

With this template that “Facts Don’t Matter”, it makes one wonder what other issues that affect our safety, our culture and our lives is this applied to?

It is time to think about the next election, and it is time to think about it with this “Facts Don’t Matter” template as a backdrop.