Burnt Orange Report

Peter Jennings is Canadian, for what it's worth. Technically, he doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome of the election. This doesn't preclude him from making partisan comments either way, just tossing that out there.

I have been watching the convention on C-Span. There is *nyet* commentary, which is refreshing. I figure the convention is already awash in targeted messages, so why add a layer of chatter to it?

Interestingly enough, a media study has been done every presidential election year from 1984 to the present (and I suspect they'll do one this year) that has compared the reporting styles of the 3 major network anchors- it has been Brokaw, Rather and Jennings from then until now.

What they did is they took about 3-5 second clips of each of them reading various stories about the presidential candidates and took out the sound. They threw in some clips of them talking about various other things- some happy and some sad- having nothing to do with the candidates. They then asked participants to rate how happy or upset the anchor was at the time he was talking- just taking nonverbal cues. They then took an average score for each of the anchors for each candidate.

What they found is rather shocking. First, both Brokaw and Rather had no significant difference percieved between the Republican or the Democrat. But Jennings was percieved to be much more favorable to the Republicans- though the stories were actually more negative towards the GOP, he was seen as being subconsciousy favorable to the GOP. What they then did was to take a servey of voters- a poll- and ask them which broadcast news they typically watched and who they voted for for president. NBC and CBS viewers voted with about the same proportion as the general population- meaning they voted for Reagan in 84, Bush in 88, Clinton in 92 and 96 and roughly even in 2000. ABC viewers, on the other hand, were shown to be much more likely to vote for the GOP than for the Democrats. This, despite the fact that the text of their stories was more Democratic-leaning than the other two networks, but the delivery was subconcsiously percieved to be more GOP friendly.

So your hunch wasn't just a hunch, its a scientifically proven phenomenon.

Great comment, Andrew. Thanks. (See? I'm not always a big pain in the arse.)

Guest blogging at ThisModernWorld.Com, Bob Harris made a good catch regarding Edwards's speech:

Interestingly, rolling out the kids at the end played as a definite plus to two women and a definite minus to two guys.

My apologies to Obama for dividing us into two nations just now.

Speaking of which, I was bugged a bit by the clear conflict between

a) the electrifying Obama speech, where he derided those in politics who divide American[s] rhetorically... and

b) Edwards talking repeatedly of "two Americas" the very next night.

Hello? Um, I know it's his calling card and all, and yes, the two Americas do exist -- I'm on their team here, I swear -- but Edwards' speech was as explicit an example of what Obama was talking about as you could possibly create. If this was a movie, you could play the two speeches as the most cynical satire.

Granted, Edwards wrapped by calling for the "two Americas" to become one at the end. And nobody seems to have noticed anyhow, since 24 hours is a hell of a long time to expect people to remember anything.

But still. Geez. Share notes, guys. Put a CC on the next email or something.

I expect The Daily Show will have some fun with this tonight.