Pres. Stories and Numbers: A Follow Up

From a friend who wanted to leave a comment:

I wanted to post a reply on your blog entry “Presidential News Stories and Numbers” but I didn’t agree with the terms of service to become a blogger in my own right – at least not yet. So, here are my question-comments, for your personal consumption, by means of which I intend to pick your news-saturated brain:

Hear, hear! I always wonder what proportion of the media's influence on elections is intentional and how much is the result of the law of unintended consequences, but I can't think up an "experiment" that could tell the two apart. Regardless, do you really think that word of mouth could generate enough momentum for a lagging candidate to seriously compete with the media favorites? It would be great if it could...

First, regarding intentional versus unintentional actions and consequences, I think it depends on the media outlet. Fox "News" clearly has an agenda, is biased, and attempts to sell a narrative to push a particular angle. Other media outlets such as Meet The Press clearly attempt to give each candidate a fair shake. These same shows often have pundits and commentators on the show who comment about the election or candidates. These pundits most often focus on the predominant narrative or meme that is filtering through the pundit class. Many of these narratives and memes I will also mention, but I attempt to mention/include other candidates as much as possible.***However, at this point, the race on the Democratic side really is down to three people.

One source of conflict is that newspapers have to sell papers in order to stay in business and new shows must have viewers to stay on air. So, much like the hottest trends in the fashion world or who the hottest pop star is, the individuals who determine what story will be on the front page, the individuals who decide what the night's big story is wield an incredible amount of power. The bottom line for many of these individuals is money. So, what story line will give them the biggest profit? If the buzz in the pundit class is about one or two candidates, then suddenly that candidate or those candidates will be everywhere. This is similar to the situation on January 4th. Whoever wins the January 3rd caucus will/should be on EVERY newspaper in the country, and the meme of the day will take off and infect everyone.

HOW the story will be written/spun will depend on the individuals writing and publishing the story. So... perhaps some of the narratives being put out are done so simply because all people are subject to the popular story of the day, but there are other cases where people attempt to put out a specific story to move public opinion in a specific direction. There are also definite cases (like this summer/fall) where it is BETTER for the pundit class to have a two-person race between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama than a six-person race between a whole bunch of candidates that cannot be easily contained/written about. It is easier to dumb down than to enlighten up.

As for the second part of the question, YES WORD OF MOUTH CAN SUCCEED. But, the difference is the number of mouths spreading the word versus the number of households infected by the media. For example, my family and friends and colleagues know I support John Edwards. Many of these people like Edwards far more than I would expect given his standing in the polls. However, if I talk to someone who doesn't know Edwards they are often far less inclined to support him. Word of mouth may not turn people in to blind followers, but it does serve as an introduction. People are introduced to a candidate and are more likely to take a look at the candidate.

DOES WORD OF MOUTH WORKS ON THE SMALL SCALE OF IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE? In these two states the race for the Democratic nomination is completely different from the rest of the country, where Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead. However, in Iowa the race is a statistical three-person tie. In New Hampshire, Obama and Clinton are now tied, and Edwards is in the high teens--trending up in recent weeks. Now, in these two states the media differential is also much smaller... so, maybe word of mouth was important 6 months ago, but now the media differential is the more important factor. The main candidates have enough money to compete with one another for all of January...so, the candidates are far more even. February is a different matter.

In summary, media dominates over word of mouth in the VAST majority of situations. However, when media is not particularly focused, or is not particularly strong, word of mouth definitely dominates. So, if your friends don't read the news, if you talk to them, you will have a HUGE INFLUENCE.... Your friends may not acknowledge this fact when you are present, but when you are away, they will remember the words that you said.

So why is media so pervasive? It's almost everywhere, but maybe there's another reason: Peer pressure? Social norms? Backing a winner? What everyone else is doing? Maybe the media is strongly associated with each/some of these?

Hopefully this post wasn't too long and winding...

-Zen Blade