In response to:

Civic Illiteracy Won the White House for Obama

McGovern Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 2:29 PM
When vast numbers of young people get their news from The Daily Show, when the alphabet networks put out reports that are 70% negative on Romney and 70% positive on Obama, and when the majority of young people don't possess enough knowledge of our system to pass a civics test, maybe this argument is not so poor after all.
MikefromDE Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 8:59 AM
David: Since you “Totally agree” that “The MTV generation has spoken” perhaps you can explain to McGovern what our position is.
MikefromDE Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 8:57 AM
McG: The premise of voters being ill-informed was advanced by the author and seconded by several conservative comments that also indicate a short attention span. So the choice is simple and I will let you decide. Either Hicks and several other folks here are entirely wrong I their basic argument (me included) or I and right and they have misinterpreted their observations.
David70 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 8:29 AM
McGovern Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 5:26 PM
plenty of time to report nightly on the story.
McGovern Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 5:26 PM
You claim network news is not really a big part of the equation. Based on what? Several times you have pointed out that opinions in these postings were not backed up with references.

The network news drove the discussions on nearly every topic, even if the viewership was low. An example is the Libyan case. The three main networks barely reported on the day-to-day breaking stories. As a result, the topic was not important with voters.

If the networks had covered the story (as I think they should have), it could have made a major difference in voters' minds. We won't know.

As a side note, (and yes, I know, I have no proof for you) I believe that if Libya had happened under George Bush, the three networks would have found
MikefromDE Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 3:29 PM
Furthermore, as Science commented, Hicks showed no connection between her statistics and voter choice. It is all inferred. I could do the same easily: Hicks is selling a book. It is in her interest to manufacture proof for her conspiracy theory. She is counting on sales to the ill-informed or unintelligent because they won’t question her findings. Now, are you buying?
MikefromDE Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 3:29 PM
McG: Well, if you are referring to The Daily Show, we do have that Fairleigh Dickinson research that found DS audiences were better informed than Fox News viewers.

But your argument doesn’t counter my point as network news is not really a big part of the equation. The people decried in this column and thread would not watch much news or view any lengthy reporting. They would be getting their “information” from sound bites, headlines and commercials. There was no shortage of advertising, both positive and negative, from both sides. Therefore, these people were up for grabs.
McGovern Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 2:47 PM
I like what I write so well, I want to read it twice.
It was only 7:15 last Tuesday evening when my daughter, who works in conservative journalism, texted me to say the election was lost. For a painful four hours, I watched the results confirm her early analysis. When it was clear the president would be re-elected and Republican challenger Mitt Romney had lost, I took an over-the-counter sleep aid and went to bed.

On Wednesday, I began a weeklong home improvement bender, drowning my sorrows in a five-gallon bucket of latex paint the color of vanilla creme. But there was no painting over my pessimism about the future.