AP spins poll results

In a classic display of passing off news analysis as news, Stephen R. Hurst of the Associated Press offered poll results showing a nine point slip by Barack Obama as a confirmation that character attacks launched by McCain had proved effective.

clipped from hosted.ap.org

Poll: McCain's attack strategy paying dividends

By STEVEN R. HURST

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Intensified attacks by Republican John McCain on the character of his Democratic opponent have coincided with Barack Obama losing a nine percentage point advantage in a national poll, which showed the candidates running dead even over the weekend.

Though it should be shocking that a press culture that offers objectivity as its ideal would pass this type of thing off as news reporting, unfortunately it is too often business as usual. The problem manifests itself from the beginning. The header, via use of a colon, offers Hurst's analysis as the results of a poll.

Thankfully we were spared a deck on this one.

The poll in question was Gallup's daily tracking poll. The poll typically does not reflect anything but analysis of raw numbers. It tends not to contain theories or conjectures as to why the numbers trend one way or the other, and aside from the headline of Hurst's story (probably not composed by him) he offers no suggestion that the analysis came from the poll.

That's appropriate enough, because Hurst is not really reporting on the poll. Hurst is attacking McCain for attacking Obama, portraying the attacks as a broken promise by McCain.

As noted above, Hurst accuses McCain of engaging in character attacks.

Let's have a look at the character attacks through the eyes of the objective reporter.

The four-term Arizona senator, who backed the war and claims experience with security and foreign policy issues, charged that Obama's promise to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office amounted to his having chosen to lose a war to promote his run for the presidency.

Character attack? The above is a policy issue. Plainly Obama made the Iraq War and his intent to get out of it the signature issue of his primary campaign. Obama made his superior judgment on the war one of his selling points. McCain's ad takes advantage of the present situation in Iraq to show that Obama's judgment was wrong.

He subsequently ran a television ad that accused Obama of deciding not to visit wounded U.S. troops because he could not take television cameras — a claim that appeared to be false.

Hurst is engaged in spin on this one. Annenberg Political Fact Check does the better job. It is fair to say, as does the Annenberg story, that the ad makes an insinuation that is probably false. But on the other hand an insinuation tends to be weaker than an accusation. The ad exaggerates a true observation regarding Obama: He put visiting the troops as a lower priority. Again, the attack is focused on behavior, not the person.

Next he issued a commercial that interpose images of Obama with pop culture figures Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, trying to paint Obama as a celebrity without the experience to lead the country.

Pointing out that a candidate is thin on experience is a character attack? If that's a character attack then what isn't a character attack?

Leadership experience is a substantive issue. Next.

That was followed by accusations that Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, had resorted to racial politics by asserting McCain and other Republicans would try to frighten Americans because Obama did not look like past U.S. presidents whose images are on the country's paper money.

Unbelievable. We finally get to a real example of a character attack. The attack is by Obama, and Hurst interprets McCain's slapdown of Obama's tactic as a character attack by McCain against Obama. Because McCain has not done what Obama suggests McCain will do, Obama's attack was not a substantive issue but instead nothing more than a cheap character attack. And the AP makes Obama the victim.

And most recently, in an Internet advertisement, the voiceover calls Obama "The One" and features Obama appearing to describe himself and his presidential quest in grandiose terms. It ends with Charlton Heston as Moses parting the Red Sea in the movie, "The Ten Commandments."

The ad mocks the approach of the Obama campaign, which is another substantive issue. And the point of the ad is another focus on Obama's inexperience in contrast to his grandiose claims. Oh, I'm sorry. The claims only appear grandiose.

Hurst has no examples to back up his lead. The editor draws equal blame in light of that oversight. Bad job, AP.