Interesting analysis, with a lot of remarkable details.
I respectfully disagree with the conclusion, however. Media bias didn't work as successfully as they hoped, especially because of Rathergate, but I'm pretty sure it helped kerry by at least 5% and probably more.
The great majority of uninformed voters get their news from the papers and the talking heads. And what they got from these sources was major lying and obfuscation for four years, deriding and demonizing bush and covering for the Dems and kerry.
Smart voters go on the internet and look into the facts for themselves. But millions of voters simply don't do that, and never see what we see. They get their opinions from TV, from neighbors, from teachers, from Hollywood, and they suck it all in without really noticing where it comes from.
I respectfully disagree with the conclusion, however. Media bias didn't work as successfully as they hoped, especially because of Rathergate, but I'm pretty sure it helped kerry by at least 5% and probably more.
The great majority of uninformed voters get their news from the papers and the talking heads. And what they got from these sources was major lying and obfuscation for four years, deriding and demonizing bush and covering for the Dems and kerry.
Smart voters go on the internet and look into the facts for themselves. But millions of voters simply don't do that, and never see what we see. They get their opinions from TV, from neighbors, from teachers, from Hollywood, and they suck it all in without really noticing where it comes from.
You've sold me. The article assumed a typical voter who was well-informed and skeptical. Obviously, millions of voters are neither. So, although you could never ascertain for sure the effect of the SMSM, you could at least determine the group of possibly affected voters. It would consist of SMSM viewer/readers who voted, but who were neither orthodox Democrats nor orthodox Republicans, since the aforementioned groups were immune to media influence.