 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 AP Writer Razzed, Praised for Obama Speech AnalysisPosted on Aug 29, 2008
Was he tone-deaf or spot-on? Or, worse, did AP writer Charles Babington prepare his reaction to Barack Obama’s nomination acceptance speech not by listening to the address but by reading the transcript before Obama actually delivered it? And just who is this Charles Babington anyway? These questions and more were bandied about on various outlets and blogs over the ensuing hours after Babington’s review hit the news wires to be picked up by newspapers around the country. First, here’s Babington’s story:
Now, let’s take a look at the Babington Effect on the blogosphere and the, uh ... newsosphere: 1) As Indecision 2008 writer Dylan Ris notes, Babington wasn’t exactly preaching to the choir when it came to some of Obama’s potential critics: conservatives. After all, even right-wing papa bear Pat Buchanan was a fan of the Obama speech! 2) CBS’ Steve Benen has some tough love for the AP. 3) Gawker offers one possible explanation: Babington didn’t see the same speech the rest of the country did. 4) A roundup in USNews.com on Friday makes the case that praise of Obama’s speech was bipartisan. 5) Editor & Publisher published reader reactions to their own story about Keith Olbermann’s thunderous on-air “smackdown” of Babington Thursday night. 6) Meanwhile, Fox News managed to make a pop culture reference from within the last 30 years in an article supporting Babington’s report.
TAGS:
|
|
Honduras’ Top Court Refuses to Reinstate Zelaya
Email
Print
Share
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Propeller
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
Technorati
TwitThis
YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Gawd, September 2, 2008 at 3:10 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
But, Stephen, there is no evidence that the vast majority of these same well-known national polling services using the same methodology as they used today were wrong about American sentiment the day before the election in 2004 or as recently as during the primaries these past months.
Other than the way the Bradley Effect (predictably) overstated Obama’s support in the larger one-person, one-vote, secret ballot, democratic primaries, the polls were quite accurate to the outcome of those state primaries.
Landlines, cellphones, whatever, when the polls predicted Clinton would likely win a state by nearly double digits, she won by nearly double digits. When they predicted the state contest would be close, it was close.
And in the days before the 2004 presidential election all but a couple of them were wrong about the outcome within a small and stated MoE when the Bradley Effect wasn’t at work at all.
Since each of the polling services use virtually the same methodology throughout the primaries and general election as they use the day or two before crunch time in November, it follows that they are as accurate about American sentiment on September 1st “if the election were held today” as they are on November 3rd.
Which, as recent history shows, is extremely accurate.
Report thisBy Stephen Smoliar, September 2, 2008 at 2:15 pm #
Gawd, the point of my conclusion is that it is almost impossible to dignify the basis for any of these polls with the noun “data.” When we read about any poll, what we read tells us more about who conducted the poll and who is publishing the results than about the subject of the poll itself! My guess is that we are in furious agreement over the proposition that polls always serve those who conduct them, so all I am trying to do is promote increased awareness of how to read anything the media decides to throw at us!
Report thisBy Gawd, September 2, 2008 at 11:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Mr. Smoliar,
Thank you for the impromptu tutorial, but doesn’t everyone already know that post-convention bounces (or, as in this case, none) never have the luxury of occurring in a vacuum and that all potential bounces (or, as in this case, none) are invariably addressed by the opposition in order to temper it?
In which case, there is nothing…nothing…special about the fact that the McCain team could and would introduce something to counteract against a post-convention, post-Obama speech bounce in order to ensure it would not happen.
And they won.
Do you think for one minute the GOP hasn’t got something interesting to introduce into the mix on, say, November 3rd?
Oh, by the way, here is a link to another major national poll, CNN/ORC, showing that Obama got zero bounce from his rock star stadium speech:
August 31, 2008
Report thisPoll shows no convention bounce for Obama
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/31/obama.mccai n.poll/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
By Stephen Smoliar, August 31, 2008 at 7:37 pm #
Gawd, in the absence of a clear and concise third-party tutorial on how to read polls (which would be more specific than, but hopefully as entertaining as, HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS), we can do well to read the Gallup commentary, rather than just looking at the numbers. First, we should consider the following paragraph:
—
As the recent trend shows, Obama did not gain any additional support in the poll since his generally well-reviewed acceptance speech on Thursday night. However, the Aug. 28-30 field period also includes two days of interviewing since the Friday morning announcement by McCain that he has chosen Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to join him on the Republican ticket. Thus, it is unclear whether the full positive impact on national voters of the Democratic convention or Obama’s speech would have been greater if not for the Palin announcement.
—
Beyond such details, we also need to take note of the qualifier in the caption, “based on a three-day rolling average.” Averaging is a “smoothing” process designed to distract from large changes over a short period of time in favor of more prolonged trends. This technique usually makes it difficult to determine if the glass is half-empty or half-full, because it is hard to tell is the water level is going up or down!
In conclusion note that the lead paragraph of data interpretation sees more cause for optimism in the numbers than you did:
Report this—
Though down slightly from the eight-point lead Obama held mid-convention, this represents a clear improvement for the Democratic candidate’s positioning in the campaign compared to a week ago when the race was about tied. The last Gallup update conducted entirely before Obama’s convention and vice presidential announcement was based on interviews conducted Aug. 20-22, and showed Obama up by two points, 46% to 44%.
—
What I find more interesting in light of the Babington analysis is that I could not find an Associated Press release on this poll on Google News or an account of such a release on Google Blogs! Did the Associated Press decided to stick its head in the sand on this one? Enquiring minds want to know!
By Gawd, August 31, 2008 at 6:24 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The post-convention Gallup Daily Tracking Poll supports AP/Babington’s position. Obama’s appearance and speech on Thursday night apparently landed on the eyes and ears of the American people with a resounding thud.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109903/Gallup-Daily-Obam aBiden-Ticket-Leads-Points.aspx
Obama did get an 8 point bounce during the convention immediately after Hillary and Bill’s much-anticipated speeches and before his.
But after his own Thursday night speech, Obama got no further bounce than the one Hillary and Bill handed him. In fact, two days after his speech and three days after his mid-convention bounce peaked, his poll rating has already fallen.
Report thisBy Leefeller, August 31, 2008 at 11:26 am #
Fox news “Alaska right next door to Russa”. News is really propaganda a tool for the powers that be. Those of us who attempt and work hard at finding real news must try with gusto, for most people out and about, perceive propaganda as the news. Even McCain with his ignorant VP choice could win, because of propagand tool, but only if the powers and elite want it. Both selected choices for president, Obama or McCain, may fill their needs.
Report thisBy 911truthdotorg, August 31, 2008 at 1:33 am #
It’s already started - the crucification of anyone who dares to question or bad mouth Obama.
Obama’s as big a warmonger as bush/cheney.
He’s actually more dangerous since his coronation is nearly complete and no one will dare question the “messiah”.
He and Biden are already playing up the 9/11 and Bin Laden lies to promote more and escalated wars to keep us “safe” and get the ones who “really attacked us on 9/11”.
Report thishttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? context=va&aid=9995
By Josh, August 30, 2008 at 2:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
What choice do we have as President? If McKane where elected this country will be a lot worse off than what we are now.
Mckane is dangerous.
Report thisBy Stephen Smoliar, August 30, 2008 at 11:31 am #
On my own blog I made it clear that I was writing about Obama’s TEXT, rather than his (or his audience’s) PERFORMANCE:
http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/08/obam a-numbers-from-at-yahoo.html
This was a METHODOLOGICAL choice on my part. I wanted to examine the words dispassionately without getting caught up in the heat of the moment, so to speak. I had applied the same methodology to both Clinton speeches; and in all three cases I gave hyperlinks to my text source (Huffington Post for the Clintons and ROLLING STONE for Obama). I still hold to this methodology and therefore take issue with your “worse” adjective in the second sentence of the introduction.
Having said all that, I have now read Babington’s text and find it hard to believe that he read the same source I did. Furthermore, since the Associated Press does not yet really live in the world of the World Wide Web, none of us will ever know IF Babington used a publicly-available text source and WHICH ONE he used. Still, the piece was clearly labeled “Analysis.” I continue to believe that every reader is entitled to form and express his/her own interpretation of the text, knowing full well that the act of interpretation is always motive-driven. The consequence is that the interpretation often tells us more about the motives than it does about the text, and I think that this is exactly what happened in this piece.
Finally, in response to Daniel Adam Smith, at least AP was honest enough to call this analysis. It is what AP tries to pass off as news that has degraded them so profoundly from the accepted standard they once were. We experienced AP (which, by the way, calls its staff “writers,” rather than “reporters,” these days) at its worst in their coverage a week ago of Obama’s announcement of his having selected Biden as a running mate:
http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/08/jose ph-biden-according-to-associate.html
Needless to say, Reuters does not have a track record that is much better:
http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/06/spik ing-news-about-impeachment.html
This is why Al Jazeera English has become my preferred choice for “straight” news:
http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/08/hill ary-trumps-bill.html
They seem to have a good way to use their own staff to figure out when they can rely on what the wire sources tell them.
Report thisBy Grousefeather, August 30, 2008 at 11:29 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
If Obama came prancing out on stage at the convention wearing a big red floppy pimp hat, a pimped out full length fur coat, and two white blond crack-whores on each arm, he would be as much of a national disgrace as George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Report thisBy Julie, August 30, 2008 at 10:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
First of all, in response to the guy who expected “I Have a Dream”, this was a nomination acceptance speech for President not a civil rights speech. It not only did not suck, it was magnificant. You are without discernment. To Babbling, I mean Babington: I don’t think you heard the speech. You must have read the CliffNotes. I agree with Olbermann, get another line of work.
Report thisBy rowman, August 30, 2008 at 10:11 am #
Obama had an opportunity to wrap this up. The intro video was good. The speech sucked and this guy was correct to call it out.
I was expecting something along the lines of I have a Dream.
What he delivered was Your life sux, you hate Bush, you have less money, but I and only I can save you.
Bah. It was a total flop. I highly doubt that this one will be played like MLK. Historic it was not. Rhetoric it was.
Report thisBy Fahrenheit 451, August 30, 2008 at 7:30 am #
Not to mention all of the buzz he’s getting from this, LOL.
Report thisBy Fahrenheit 451, August 30, 2008 at 7:08 am #
Yeah, Olbermann did a piece on this guy. So what’s the big deal; he wrote his opinion of the speech. Viva la differance (sic). I just think this article and Olbermann’s comments are a waste of perfectly good electrons.
Report thisBy JimBob, August 30, 2008 at 3:33 am #
Newspapers all over the country will be taking feeds from Fox News. The Corporate Media want McCain (well, actually his tax breaks and lack of regulation) to win this election and they’re going to do what it takes to help.
Report thisBy Daniel Adam Smith, August 30, 2008 at 2:56 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
What does it say about the Washington AP bureau that the main hatchet man is Ron Fournier. A “Journalist” that considered joining the McCain Campaign. Babington if he even exists was brought in to quell the netroots assertions and anger from the many Fournier articles slamming Obama and the Democrats.
Babingtons review of the speech like the response of all of Right Wing Surrogates would have been given without even seeing or reading the speech.
Radio is being controlled by Clear Channel. NPR has become more and more a conservative mouthpiece with few exceptions and now the AP which is used my 1000s of Newspapers is essentially a republican mouthpiece covered shabbily by a Potemkin village of neutrality.
Report this