The Los Angeles Times today has as its top story the results of a new nationwide poll of likely voters. The giant headline on latimes.com reads: "Poll: McCain Would Beat Clinton in presidential bid." The story appears on the front page of the print edition of today's paper above the fold. The poll is completely meaningless and represents the worst in American political journalism. Frankly, I'm surprised that the Times has debased its political coverage to a level this crass and tabloid.
First of all, a nationwide poll for president is not relevant in any way. As the 2000 presidential election dramatically proved, the results of the nationwide popularity contest between candidates has no bearing on who becomes the President of the United States.
The Los Angeles Times today has as its top story the results of a new nationwide poll of likely voters. The giant headline on latimes.com reads: "Poll: McCain Would Beat Clinton in presidential bid." The story appears on the front page of the print edition of today's paper above the fold. The poll is completely meaningless and represents the worst in American political journalism. Frankly, I'm surprised that the Times has debased its political coverage to a level this crass and tabloid.</div></div>
First of all, a nationwide poll for president is not relevant in any way. As the 2000 presidential election dramatically proved, the results of the nationwide popularity contest between candidates has no bearing on who becomes the President of the United States.
Secondly, why issue this poll now? Neither Senator McCain of Arizona nor Senator Clinton of New York have even announced their candidacies yet - it's too early even for them. The Times, apparently unwilling or unable to find a more compelling political story, instead invented its own by spending (probably) thousands of dollars on an irrelevant poll.
Thirdly, the Times, as an important institution in journalism, usually has higher standards and provides stories about issues - not about the "horse race" between candidates. Horse race stories like this are the worst aspect of American politics. Rather than talk about issues, let's talk about who has the best campaign strategy or the nicest hairdo or the snazziest outfit. Or - wait - let's not.
The paper would better serve its mission and its readership if it ran a major story on the top issues likely to face the presidential candidates when they actually start campaigning in 2007 and 2008. The story could show differences between the candidates on important issues including the Iraq war, immigration policy, health care, job security and economic inequality, education, and the list goes on. It's easy to imagine a series of feature-length articles on each of these issues, showing where the (presumed) candidates stand. Instead, the Times took the low road and just conducted a meaningless, expensive, and tabloid poll at a far-too early stage in the campaign.
Let me be clear. I'm personally not happy to see the poll indicates that, nationally, the most popular candidate for President is a Senator who currently advocates for sending tens of thousands more American troops to Iraq, who is anti-choice, who has a 0% rating on voting for civil rights, who has an anti-union voting record, and who supports diverting away public school resources through "vouchers." I think there are better choices for President than 70-year-old John McCain. But that's not why I'm so angry about the Times story. I think the story is an example of tabloid journalism that should not have been approved by the editors of what is usually a fine newspaper. I hope the Times elevates their coverage of the Presidential election once the 2008 campaign actually begins.
From The Courage Campaign