Monday, July 13, 2009


Paul Steinhauser, deputy political director at CNN did a story on new poll numbers for President Obama commissioned by CNN. According to Steinhauser 72% of those polled said that Obama inspired confidence (down from 75%).

The numbers of the poll were flashed on screen as Steinhauser spoke. Then Steinhauser said it was a different story regarding support for the Presidents policies and how confident people were with those policies. I never knew what those numbers were because, despite the fact that Steinhauser went on with his report for about another 4-5 minutes, he never gave us those deteriorating numbers nor were they shown on screen. All we heard from Steinhausers' report is that those numbers were significantly weaker than the "inspire confidence" number, and down from Obama's previous poll numbers. But Steinhauser never said what those numbers were.

I looked up the numbers and will give them to you here:

53% believe Obama has a clear plan for solving the country's problems down 11 points since February.

56% say that Obama shares their beliefs on the issues that matter to them, down 7 points since February. CNN declined to publish the opposing numbers. One could assume its 47% who don't believe that Obama has a plan ( a pretty high number) but some could have answered " I don't know", and the same is true for the 44% who say that Obama does not share their beliefs on issues that matter most.

But one has to wonder why CNN elected to only give us the 72% "inspire confidence" number and not tell viewers or show, what the other, less impressive and in many ways more significant, numbers were.

Obama's more significant and deteriorating numbers which CNN declined to report on the air were also supported by a Rassmussen poll which showed 52% approved of his job performance and 48% disapproved, his worst numbers since his presidency. And as Rassmussen pointed out , this was the first time his job approval numbers in their poll dipped below his winning percentage in the election. None of which are good signs.

But the real problem for the moment is the lack of quality, objectivity and journalistic integrity CNN has shown in covering the Obama administration, the same lack of quality we saw from all media outlets during George Bush's presidency, and a lack of quality that can be seen as directly responsible for many of the disasters Bush brought on the country, since had the press taken a more responsible role in covering Bush's failures and reported honestly about them, starting with his failures regarding 911, there is a good chance many of Bush's disasters would not have occurred since he wouldn't have had the political capital to carry them out.

CNN has shown, as they did with Bush, a distinct willingness to go into the tank for Obama and completely abdicate any journalistic responsibility to the truth. During the AIG bonus scandal when it was discovered that Obama not only knew about the bonuses being paid in advance but actually gave the go ahead to pay them, CNN heaped most of the blame on Chris Dodd who, at White House urging, put in the loophole that allowed the bonuses to be paid.

Suzanne Malveaux who covers the White House for CNN reported the day after Obama's speech to the AMA that the audience, in her words, "melted" in front of Obama. I'm not kidding. That's the word she used -- "melted". The truth is the only one who melted was Malveaux herself. I watched the speech. For the first time during any speech Obama has given he was roundly and loudly booed and more than once, the loudest boos coming from doctors who didn't like his stance on no limits for malpractice suits. They were the most hostile audience he has ever faced.

If CNN keeps up this kind of slanted and dishonest coverage it's going to continue to get exposed. And then its fair to say that their slogan just might have to change from "the most trusted name in news" to what they are slowly becoming -- "the most busted name in news"


Mrs. Polly said...

Your headline is misleading. It implies that Steinhauser fudged numbers in order to hide them, when he clearly stated their results, a focus of the segment. If he didn't mention the specific numerals, so what? Then you complain that CNN refused to publish the numbers, and link to the "hidden" numbers where? At CNN.

There's no link to the video; you have only a screen-cap. I couldn't find the video, but I did find Steinhauser having no trouble talking about the President's policies being increasingly unpopular in three different polls from June 18: Obviously he had no trouble discussing negatives for Obama a month ago on CNN.

The final nail in your argument is that you rely on reliably Republican outlier Rasmussen, a favorite tactic among Hillary Clinton supporters who--unlike the Secretary of State herself-- can't get over her primary loss.

Since you were one of her ad men, your slant isn't surprising. But the dishonesty here is. Or perhaps not.

Marc Rubin said...

"Your headline is misleading. It implies that Steinhauser fudged numbers in order to hide them.."

you could not be more wrong. He didnt fudge numbers -- it never gave them. Thee was no implication at all -- he never gave or showed any other number in his report than the 72% who said Obama "inspired confidence".

He didnt fudge the numbers. He never even gave the other number. That was the problem.

Marc Rubin said...

"If he didn't mention the specific numerals, so what?"

Maybe thats good enough for you but for honest people who want the WHOLE truth not just the part someone wants you to know its not good enough.

Marc Rubin said...

"...Then you complain that CNN refused to publish the numbers, and link to the "hidden" numbers where? At CNN..."

"..Since you were one of her ad men, your slant isn't surprising. But the dishonesty here is. Or perhaps not."

Not to beat a dead horse which is what you are riding, but the real problem is your terrible grasp of vocabular and reading comprehension.

First just to give you a much needed vocabularly lesson the word "hide" means "to keep from view". That is exactly what Steinhauser did, neither telling us what those bad poll numbers were nor showing them.

As for your other non-point. I never said they refused to publish the numbers so go back and read it again slowly. I said they didnt show them on television or say what they were. I had to go to the web site myself to find them and that is what I said.

Try CVS for a good but cheap pair of reading glasses. And thanks for your comments.

Anonymous said...

As I recall, Ms. Malveaux was not the brightest, or most unbiased reporter when she did her street reporter stint for the Washington, DC NBC affiliate. She has not impress me as a reliable reporter in her work at CNN, either.

Other than Lou Dobbs, I can't bother to give the other CNN talking heads an audience. Lou may be slanted, but you know going in that it is usually a different slant than the rest of the CNN crew.

Anonymous said...

Faux news from a faux reporter about a faux President in a faux age peopled by faux personalities. However, my outrage over faux news is real.

bert in Ohio

Mary Ellen said...

Wow...Mrs. Polly has been guzzling the Kool-Aid today! She should read the list of possible side-effects from Kool-Aid overdose.

May cause difficulty in reading and reading comprhension.

Facts become blurred and running off at the mouth is a distinct possibility.

Hillary Derangement Syndrome can last up to 6 months to one year. If this lasts more than one year, stop all doses of Kool-Aid until these symptoms disappear.

Drooling and slobbering may take place when looking at a picture of Obama.

Dry mouth will occur when trying to spit out the truth.

Do not continue drinking the Kool-Aid for more than 6 weeks or permanent brain damage may occur.

Great post, Tom in Paine. Like another blogger mentioned, the only one worth watching on CNN is Lou Dobbs.

DancingOpossum said...

Mary Ellen, you nailed it.

Don't you love how the Obots keep telling us to get over it when they're the ones who can't stop talking about TEH EVUL HILLARY...the one thing you never hear them say anymore, of course, is "Do you think Hillary would have been better on X?" Because even they know the answer.