Do you consider, in and of itself, news reporting saying Republicans are likely to win the House...

[Silent3]

...to be signs of "right wing media take-over" and/or "pushing a right-wing agenda"?

There are plenty of things about our news media to complain about, but this sure as hell isn't one of them.

Whether you like it or not, an unbiased view of election history is more than reason enough to consider the odds of Republicans taking the House to be higher than Democrats holding the House.

Mid term elections are typically bad for the party of the incumbent President. This is well established.

Economic distress, like high inflation, is typically bad for the party of the incumbent President. This is well established.

Current gerrymandering and a red-state advantage in House representation cause a specific pro-Republican bias that means Democrats have to outperform Republicans just to break even.

Thankfully there are other current issues which (God, I hope!) are turning the odds in our favor, like backlash against the SCOTUS overturning Roe, and, oh, people preferring democracy over fascism.

But there aren't plentiful historical examples for what those particular issues will do to American electoral odds.

In light of this, what would you expect the media to do if it were being fair?

Simply not bring up the odds at all? Do you consider predicting odds, in and of itself, to be a biased thing to do?

Do you expect that "fair" means pundits deliberately going out of their way to make Democrats feel better?

There are, as I said, many valid reasons to complain about the media. My biggest complaint right now is that it's as close to objectively true as anything in news reporting can be that Republicans are a threat to democracy. This should be treated as a well-proven problem, not merely a "let's now hear from the Republican side" opinion where the condition of the world is forcefully squeezed into a guise of objectivity woven out of false equivalences.

Saying odds don't favor Democrats holding the House, however, is not among the many sins of news reporting. Further, I don't buy the all-to-common belief that simply reporting bad news depresses voter turnout more than it might also it energizes action.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

1. I consider it to be a sign that most pundits are cluelessly repeating 'conventional wisdom'

They're lazy and just doing it for the face time and the paycheck. Don't rock the boat or you might fall out.

[Silent3]

3. "Conventional wisdom", whether you like it or not, does establish the baseline...

...for predicting odds. What would you consider to be more "energetic" punditry which is, nevertheless, still objective, not merely the cheerleading and hopefulness it seems some people would rather hear?

[hlthe2b]

17. Yes. Many/most of them regurgitate this daily without even considering any evidence to the

contrary--even when polls argue against them from time to time--at least suggesting a need for "open eyes" for any new conflicting paradigm. That said, I'm not implying bias necessarily, but too much reliance on "conventional" wisdom without checking for any evidence to the contrary, is, as you say, lazy and in some cases, arrogance.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

2. A well-reasoned and thoughtful post. Thanks (nt)

[pwb]

4. Yes.

They talk out of both sides of their mouths. Call it opinion and I may watch it. Call it News, No.

[Silent3]

5. What do you expect then?

Total avoidance of a discussion of odds as a requirement for "fairness"?

Do you have a solid the-odds-are-great-for-Democrats argument that you believe an unbiased, objective would uncover and report?

[pwb]

10. If the party out of office is favored to win show us a chart proving it? Were women's freedoms

part of this favorite push back then? It all may be true about off year gains but this time it is very different. Don't act like it is the same, like they do. We will win big all over the country and our media better start reporting so. IMO.

[Silent3]

18. Why do you need a chart for something like that?

You even go on to say "It all may be true about off year gains but this time it is very different".

Yes, of course it could be (and I greatly hope is) different.

Your certainty in saying, however, "We will win big all over the country and our media better start reporting so", is cheerleading, much more than it is defensible prognostication. Since there isn't history to cover how something like the abortion issue affects an election, and since polling has become very unreliable, the most rational, unbiased approach is to predict (not emphatically, of course, as if certainty is possible) what history predicts.

If polling were showing enormous gains for Democrats, so big as to swamp any doubts about the accuracy of the polls, you'd have a point. But that's clearly not the case. Unless you have much more than a gut feeling, like extensive data on likely voter turnout, you don't have anything that supersedes historically-based predictions.

[jaxexpat]

6. You predict the future by relating the past to the unknowns of the present.

The rules of self-fulfilling prophecy apply to the relationship of a Republican owned media and the vagaries of the American electorate.

Go figure.

[usonian]

7. Consider sports betting. Predicting odds puts the bookmakers in charge, more so than the players.

Media predicting odds puts them in charge, more so than the candidates.

And as for bias, Boring Joe just gets great things done, while his vanquished foe generates tons of (money-making) pub, BECAUSE THAT'S ALL HE LIVES FOR. They are cut from the same cloth.

No good deed goes ignored.
Pond Scum.

[Silent3]

8. The complaints in your post which I consider valid aren't the ones that have to do with odds...

...predictions.

Those biases (like under-reporting Biden accomplishments while focusing too much on Trump or bad news for Biden) are things that can unfairly tip the odds in favor of Republicans. No argument from me there.

My objection is to treating the part of news coverage where odds are discussed, in and of itself, as an element of bias.

Your argument about "bookmakers" isn't convincing at all. When bookmakers are crooked, they report the opposite of what they think the odds are while placing their bets on their pretend underdogs.

[usonian]

9. I hear you. Thx

[mcar]

11. What I object to is the fact that they refuse to budge regardless

of R's shrinking chances. And they are shrinking. They continue to act as if all the winds are in Rs favor, which is simply not true.

I'd have more respect for the MSM's midterm reporting if they were honestly saying that polls aren't looking as great for Rs, but that they still have the advantage in the House.

Also, they continually report that poll numbers that favor Dems are tightening, but don't do the same with Rs.

[iemanja]

12. I consider it part of the media's useful soothsaying

and they are generally wrong. Remember when they were certain that Hillary would be president?

[BlueTsunami2018]

13. No, that's the reality we face.

The gerrymandering, the new election laws and officials in place and just the general history of people voting for the party out of power in the midterms all points to us losing the House. It’s happens almost every time. The lone time it didn’t in at least fifty years was W’s first midterm and that was under extraordinary circumstances.

So, no, it’s not the media showing right wing bias by reporting what is almost certain to happen.

What is their fault, is the normalization of fascism. By not calling this shit out for what it is from the moment it reared its head, they’ve endangered the entire country. The bothsiderism and false equivalence has fucked this country up badly, probably irreparably.

[Silent3]

20. +1 n/t

[CousinIT]

14. I don't consider them saying that an issue...

...what I DO FIND an issue with is their refusal to report FACTS that counter Republican propaganda. It's just "Republicans/Trump said...." - and they RARELY cover what Republicans have told America their plans are. HOW MANY MAINSTREAM OUTLETS covered THIS story today?

https://www.alternet.org/2022/10/gop-plans-catastrophic-default-democrats/

How many of them have spent significant time on THIS? https://time.com/6204928/irs-87000-agents-factcheck-biden/

How about THIS?

I've seen this graphic from "Turning Point USA" - a MAGA propaganda outlet. They're spreading this graphic full of lies about social security on social media.

NONE of what it says is true. https://archive.ph/8MECJ

Did the media spend any time debunking any of this?

HOW ABOUT Ted Budd's LIES about Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness program? https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1578735257276190721.html
(NOPE. Not a PEEP from the media about that)

Maybe if they DID, we wouldn't be in this mess. This 'both sides' bullshit is bullshit. Both parties are NOT. THE. SAME. and media has been DANGEROUSLY SLOW in coming to that realization. And this could cost us our Democracy.

HOW MUCH TIME have they spent telling people Republicans ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE? Are we to believe by their milquetoast coverage of this - when they bother AT ALL - that Americans don't give a shit about these programs?

HOW MUCH TIME have they spent telling people about the Republicans' entire platform? Pissy little.

HOW MUCH TIME have they spent telling people ABOUT THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE DEMOCRATS?

NONE.

AFTER THEY FAILED TO DO THEIR JOBS and this critical time in the US, THEN they screech that "Well Republicans are gonna take over the House because that's what always happens" -- MAYBE that's what "always happens" because the media is FAILING to properly report on the one party that has ABOLISHED Democracy because they can't "win" any other way. And the media fails to report THAT TOO. (See David Frum, who wrote about this but I NEVER hear it from mainstream media) And they FAILED to properly, clearly and thoroughly report on the DISASTROUS policies Republicans are peddling.

Duh.

OF COURSE Democrats will lose the House in the midterms. Because that's what ALWAYS happens. Because the media ALWAYS fails. to. do. its. job.

[pwb]

15. You got it IT.

Bullseye.

[LW1977]

16. This

Hook, line, sinker

[Silent3]

19. You're complaining about the same things I complain about with the media

So there's no disagreement there. I'm specifically talking about when people reacting to electoral predictions, in and of themselves, as both signs of right-wing bias and effective self-fulfilling prophecies.

It's the other bullshit in the media, not the predictions, that lower Democrats odds of electoral success.

[GoodRaisin]

22. This is it. Great post.

Where is the push back to all these fucking lies?

[DemocraticPatriot]

21. Frankly, in 2016, I think we may have fallen victim to "over-confidence",

among other things.... Most of the media assured us that Hillary would win--- and too many Democrats failed to vote.


It is just possible that it may be better for us, if too many pundits assure us that we are probably going to lose... than if they assured us that we were going to win. It is enough in question that I don't think Democrats will be discouraged from voting-- but they could be "too busy" if they were assured that everything was "in the bag"...

[DFW]

23. We also fell victim to heavy media bias

Even my German wife noticed, when we were on vacation in the State in the summer of 2016, that something was gravely wrong with media reporting. When CNN was devoting 20 seconds to clips out of Hillary speeches, and running Trump speeches for 30 minutes without interruption, she told me, "you may know what to do, but millions of Americans will only see that. I wouldn't be so confident. You may be in for a nasty surprise." She was right. She saw the impact the media had, and sensed its outcome before I ever did.

From what I have seen of the US media--and that is precious little, since I don't get US TV or radio while I'm over here--it still tends to lean rightward in its bias, and tendency to put things Democratic in a negative light, and put things Republican in a positive light. The effect of this is magnified when spread out across a land where CNN and Fox Noise are the only two news sources anyone pays any attention to.

I think two opposing factors will determine the outcome of the battle for the House: Voter turnout on the Democratic Side, and voter suppression on the Republican side. Polls constantly show that preferences favor the Democrats. If Republicans get to negate a percentage of those votes where it counts, we lose, no matter HOW much greater voter preference may be.

Republicans are proud Stalinists (anti-kommanism is just a phrase for the soundbytes), and adhere to the statement attributed to their Soviet role model "Uncle Joe," as he was called here in the States during World War II: Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. Comrade Dzhugashvili knew whereof he spoke.

[AntivaxHunters]

24. The MSM in America reports what's important to their corporate handlers

And that goes for MSNBC, FOX, CNN, and others.

Their "job" is to report what they're told to report on and anyone who doesn't toe the mark and crosses the red line is gone and forever ex-communicated. Just ask Melissa Harris Perry about that sometime.

Let me ask you this, how many of you own a Roku or a Smart TV?
If you don't have a Roku, it would be one of the best investments you have ever made in your life. And no, I'm not kidding.
there's literally 10s of 1000s of channels on it (usually refereed to as "apps&quot that are 100% free to install. Roku even has free live TV complete with a cable like channel guide for it. Combined with individual free channel apps you 1 click to install and watch, your choices for news are endless. A "smart TV" is nice but not nearly as good. However it does allow access for YouTube which itself is a gold mine of independent news media for progressives & leftists.

When I got my first Roku a little more than 10 years ago I was floored. It makes cable TV look like a Chevy Chevette trying to drive in the fast lane on the Autobahn lol The amount of news media is unbelievable. And it's not only news stations from the United States either but from all around the world. I can watch German news 24/7 from DW or ARD any time I wish. Or I can tune in to local news from Los Angeles, Denver, Milwaukee, or Timbuktu. Whoever thought we'd have the ability to watch local news from Green Bay while living in say Rio Rancho New Mexico? lol There's even news stations coming from First Nations. It's wild! And then there's everything else on top it like music (which is free). Thousands upon thousands of endless streaming music stations that you can listen to any time. get this, I can switch from watching news from say Lee Camp or TYT to listening to Polka music and then going to watch classic B&W western films.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's incredibly simple to stop watching news that's fed to you from corporations who actively lobby against your own self interests. And the cost is just a couple trips to Starbucks (who BTW you shouldn't be supporting in the first place given their exploitation of workers, fighting against unionizing, and how workers are striking all across the country who work there). You can buy a used one for the cost of a Happy Meal on Craigslist or ebay. Just make sure it's a Roku 3 or higher.

Anyways, the options are there!

[Silent3]

26. Your response doesn't seem to match the topic of my post

I was focusing specifically on how people react badly to polling and predictions of electoral victory or defeat.

I've already stated that I know there's a lot wrong with our media, but if your response to bad news you don't like is to hunt for media that tells you what you want to hear, that's an unhealthy habit. In and of itself, someone telling you Democratic odds of keeping the House are bad shouldn't not automatically be interpreted as "corporations who actively lobby against your own self interests".

[AntivaxHunters]

28. Look at the time stamp lol

I was literally half awake when I wrote it. It looks like I interpreted it incorrectly.
Someone above mentioned the media and what not

[Celerity]

25. No

Do you consider, in and of itself, news reporting saying Republicans are likely to win the House......to be signs of "right wing media take-over" and/or "pushing a right-wing agenda"?

[Tickle]

27. I think this midterm

should not be compared to the past because times are much different now. People are more aware of what's going on and more people are going to vote.

I have never felt this level of anger with our government. The SC decision on Roe as set things in motion for a landslide of people voting.

[sharonlee]

29. I take all polls with a grain of salt...

After the 2016 election. I hope these polls push people to show up and vote.

[Sympthsical]

30. People not hearing what they don't want to is dangerous

Because when something comes as a surprise they had not even allowed the possibility for, they more easily grasp conspiracy thinking to explain why the world isn't functioning the way they expect it to function, because they've been told reality is different than what it objectively is.

2016 shouldn't have been a surprise. I had a lot of friends who were "In the bag!" people who I just rolled my eyes at and replied. "Just wait. You won't like this." I wrote an OP back in January(?) about how the Rittenhouse verdict was inevitable and got a hellish amount of push back.

People only paid attention to what they wanted to be true and not what was objectively true. There's a difference between forecasting and wishcasting. A lot of pundits, Twitterati, and writers make a lot of money wishcasting for their audience.

And then when it doesn't pan out, well, conspiracy or some kind of -ism or some unholy power aligned against. I remember 2004 when that election was stolen, stolen, stolen, and you couldn't tell anyone otherwise. Then when MAGA does it, it's "How dare they?!"

Yeah. When people are told the fix must've been in because what they were told didn't come true, it's easy to seize on the unlikely and the untrue.

All that said. If this were any other year, I'd say we were toast. Inflation, housing and gas prices, war, midterm historical trends. But there is Dobbs and there is Trump. I am not entirely convinced our usual models, instincts, and patterns will be as predictive as usual.

If I had to cautiously, cautiously, cautiously make a prediction - that I fully acknowledge I can be wrong on - I think we do much better than anticipated. I think we win on the margins.