I am of the opinion that an awful lot of the news coverage we receive — more than we sometimes think — is skewed not to advance any agenda but merely to tell some or all of us what we seem to want to hear. I don't think too many people really believe Fox News is "fair and balanced" but I think they find a certain comfort level in the way it softens or spins things for Conservatives…and certainly Liberals have many places to go where bad news for their side won't be shoved in their faces. Just as it's good in broadcasting to cater to specific age demographics, it's financially prudent to make your news pleasant for certain groups. We tend to go looking for news that reinforces our beliefs and makes us feel that "our team" is winning.
For those of us who follow polls, we can almost always find encouraging data. This weekend, for instance, you have this poll saying that Kerry has pulled into the lead in the "battleground states" of Pennsylvania, Michigan and New Mexico, and that he's even in North Carolina, a state Bush expected to win easily. At the same time, this poll shows Bush well ahead in Arizona, a state the Kerry side probably thought they could win. You can even find your good news in the same place on different days. Today, Monday the 19th, the daily Rasmussen Poll has Bush up by two points…but since the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus three points, that's a tie. Later this week, I'd wager, you'll be able to click that link and have the Rasmussen folks tell you that Kerry has a two or three point lead over Bush. Again, it'll be a tie…and it may be that not one person has changed his or her mind in the interim. But doesn't it make you feel a wee bit better to see your guy is ahead? Even if it's by a meaningless point or two?
One thing about which the polls seem to be in sync: They all say that by an unprecedented percentage, most voters have their minds made up. This may be why the announcement of John Edwards as Kerry's running mate did not provide as much of a "bounce" in the polls as that kind of event usually brings. A "bounce" usually comes from the undecided or vaguely-committed, and there aren't as many of them this time. I still think a number of possible events — including the much-mentioned Big Terrorist Attack — could change a lot of minds that are now supposedly set in concrete…though I'm not sure which way. The Bush side seems to be positioning for all possibilities: If there is such an attack, they'll tell us it proves the terrorists are trying to get Bush out of office because they know he'll fight them harder than Kerry. If there is no such attack, they'll tell us it proves the Bush team is doing a great job and that they foiled that Big Terrorist Attack. Ultimately, this election may come down to which one of those arguments they wind up using and whether anyone buys it.