Terry talks—we listen

Imagine my surprise when I discovered late yesterday that my Tuesday post got a comment—any comment. But, really, imagine my surprise when I saw that said comment was from the named subject of said post:

Terry Moran said...

Thanks for the critique, and thanks for watching. But FYI--in my original lead-in into the piece, I did indeed say "leaned Democrats." It is a term of art in polling, and I was worried about using it precisely because some people might not grasp it. I see i was correct. Thanks again, Terry Moran.

First off, as I replied in the comments, I stand corrected. I have no reason to believe that Mr. Moran would take the time to write in if the broadcast version said differently—even if I don’t have a tape, a tape of the Monday show does exist—so, I’ll concede that I heard Terry wrong.

Second, let me thank Terry Moran for setting the record straight, for taking the time to read my post, and for taking the time to leave a comment. In case you readers have not observed this in the past, I encourage dialogue and appreciate the feedback.

But, allow me now, knowing that there is a small chance that Mr. Moran will be looking in again, to continue.

I might have misheard Terry on Monday, but that I did might be more a testament to my expectations than to my poor hearing. Moran did not say “you Democrats,” but I was primed to hear it. I was primed to misinterpret the fuzzy word, to make the cognitive leap, to, I’m afraid, assume that the message that left this media mouthpiece’s mouth was one that labeled Democrats as “other,” because that is the message I have heard so many times from Terry Moran.

Of course, Terry is not so crass or overtly unprofessional as to blurt out “Democrats suck! Especially you liberal ones!” But, in so many words, in the shape of a question, in the misinterpretation or misrepresentation of a left-leaning argument, in the little impromptu summations Moran often adds at the end of an interview or tape piece, I hear a bias that favors the political right (as opposed to left, not wrong, naturally), and favors the sensational headline over the more subtle or sensitive story. I have borne witness to this bias since Moran breathlessly reported from in front of the Texas Statehouse on an early November night back in the year 2000. I really had no ideas about Terry before that night, I barely knew who he was, but I knew instantly how he felt and where he stood.

And, in some respects, that’s OK. Members of the media, establishment or otherwise, are allowed to have opinions. The problem comes with the assumption that they keep those opinions to themselves—with the assumption that they are “unbiased.”

That is not to say that all journalism is somehow polluted by bias. There is a difference between a journalist and a pundit, a difference between reporting and interpreting, and a difference between asking hard questions and providing easy answers—the problem comes when establishment outlets allow the distinctions to blur.

Further, Terry’s gracious comment frames the problem as one of misunderstanding his word, but fails to address the larger point, namely, that he and his ABC colleagues chose to ignore the content of Al Gore’s book to instead focus on (what has been, and increasingly becomes more so) a non-issue.

Sure, some of us like Al Gore. We like what he has to say about the assault on reason, or about the environment, or about the war in Iraq (some of us also remember and dislike how he botched his 2000 presidential campaign), but because we are interested in his ideas, doesn’t mean that we are waiting with bated breath for our mystical leader to announce that he will lead us back to the White House. When he decides to join the race, if he decides to join the race, then I will evaluate and revisit my allegiances. Until then, well, there is no shortage of interesting candidates for us Democrats (I’m a blogger, I can do that) to observe, asses, and support. (Compared to what Republicans have—and what they are waiting for, too—it’s an embarrassment of riches.)

I feel pretty safe in saying that’s how most of “us Democrats” see things. I feel safe because of Moran’s own cited statistic—those “17% of leaned Democrats” that pine for a Gore candidacy. Fewer than one in five leaners is hardly a groundswell.

And that brings me to Terry’s Parthian shot—his “term of art” that he feels we did not, and cannot, grasp. I may not have heard it, but, as my update to my post makes very clear, once I heard it, I grasped it just fine.

I have been working with “leaned” respondents for over a decade. I am, after all, not just a blogger, I am also a strategic consultant. I know all the polling tricks to tease out the bias behind the assertion, to discern preference, to attempt to limn the consumer or voter. I know how to push a respondent, and how to “push” a poll, and I usually work overtime to gracefully do the former, and avoid doing the latter.

Pushing an “undecided” or a DK/NR (don’t know/no response) to weigh in on a question is a useful tool, but it is only a tool—one of many available to me in the drafting of the polling instrument and the interpretation of the data. I know that because of what I do, and others might know it, too. But if Terry Moran thinks this “term of art” (AKA “lingo” or “insider-speak”) is too obscure for the typical viewer, then why did he use it? Isn’t his job to communicate and educate, rather than impress and/or confuse his audience?

Again, I appreciate the correction. But alas, to the broader point and the parting broadside, I’m afraid I see that Mr. Moran was not correct at all.

Thanks again.