I might have to find a way to work this into my dissertation...
Snap polls are one of the most important innovations this election cycle. In the past, pundits had a full 24 hours to pontificate about the debate before the people had a chance to have their say. That may not seem like much, but in the fast moving world of TV news, its long enough for narratives to get set. But no longer.
Now, within an hour of the end of the debate, the pundits have to adjust their views to match reality as it is perceived by the people who matter: the voters. Had the pundits had their way, they would have written and talked endlessly about what a great night McCain had. That was the initial take on CNN, just as it was the initial take on many of the elite media blogs.
Here, for example, is Time's Michael Scherer:
1. Obviously the most interesting debate so far, and John McCain's best. For long stretches McCain seemed relaxed and comfortable. He shaped the conversation, putting Barack Obama on the defensive. Most importantly, McCain got under Obama's skin at several points. Those broad Obama smiles are charming, but they break his super-level-headed mystique. If Obama's job was to be unflappable, he found himself flapped at several points during the night.2. Best line of the night goes to McCain, a pre-scripted zinger that, for once, McCain delivered without a hitch: "Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush you should have run four years ago. I will take this country in a new direction." Obama's response was also good, explaining how McCain had sided with Bush on the major economic issues of the day. But the response won't get cable news play. The zinger will.
Judging by the polls, point number one is just totally wrong. It was McCain who came across as negative and angry, not Obama. The nonpartisan pundits just got it totally wrong.
Point number two might be worse. Zingers? Zingers worked before the age of blogs and YouTube. They worked when people all watched the same three evening news programs, and when they all only watched those programs. The world has changed in such fundamental ways that "zingers" and "sound bytes" don't work the way they once did.
Here's the fundamental problem: It's not just that pundits and journalists aren't average people - although they aren't - it's that they don't have a clue what "average people" are like. Why? Because in a nation the size of a continent that's home to more than 300 million people, there is no such thing as average. This idea that we're a nation of simple, hard working, lunch pail carrying blue collar workers is so hopelessly out of date that its hard to believe anyone actually believes it anymore. And yet the people on my TV and in my magazines clearly do.
Think about tonight's "Joe the Plumber" discussion. The point of Obama's conversation with "Joe the Plumber" was that Joe was quite well off. But the way that McCain talked about him, down to the silly name, it made it sound like Joe was a simple, hard working, average Joe.
Now the pundits ate it up, because it played right into the caricature they have of "average Americans." But actual Americans? They hated it. It tanked in the focus groups, and it tanked in the snap polls. But in the past they would have had a full day to get carried away with their own judgments, and by the time the polling was complete the narrative would have been set.
Snap polls, in short, virtually eliminate the ability of the press to create its own narrative for the debate. Instead, it puts the power into the hands of the people. Thats huge.
