American Politics Journal -- Who Cares What Iowans Think?



Home • Latest • Archive • Search

How the Press Misreported the Iowa Caucuses

by David J. Gonzo

Jan. 25, 2000 -- NEW YORK (AmpolNS) -- Last night and into the early morning, the press and pundits on cable news blab-o-vision obsessed over their exit polls, pithy comments and evening prognostications about the results of the Iowa Caucuses. Their focus was on who the "victors" and also-rans "really" were, but once again they missed -- or intentionally avoided -- the big stories to have emerged from the caucuses.

First and foremost were their own inane and inaccurate predictions leading up to the caucuses, especially concerning Al Gore's showing. Gore finished with around 63% of the vote -- far, far above what many pollsters and political talking heads had forecast. Once again, an attempt by media spin doctors to "make" news about Gore, whom the press seem to love to deride and mock at any opportunity (they were caught with their pants down when one reporter blew the whistle on their schoolkid-like behavior in the press room during a New Hampshire debate with Bill Bradley), fell flat on its face.

All of the cable news outlets had been playing and re-playing Gore's energized admonition to supporters to get out and participate, casting it in the context of a "tough contest" -- with the implicit message that Gore was vulnerable and it's "still" a horse race.

It never was. And a 63% showing under any other circumstances would be characterized as a landslide. We didn't catch that word once in all of our channel-surfing.

Second was the somewhat "surprised" reaction of many anchors and correspondents to the third-place showing of Alan Keyes. Surprise? Few news outlets had been reporting on advertising and media in Iowa leading up to the vote -- and Keyes's advertising "blast" of the last week. Indeed, a few pundits had predicted a strong showing for Keyes, but none that we caught made mention of Keyes's ad strategy.

But we did enjoy amusing coverage given Keyes during the opening segment of last night's Politically Incorrect. Host Bill Maher talked with their "reporter" in Iowa, satirist-activist Michael Moore, who was reporting from a "caucus" of Dungeons and Dragons players who were completely antipathetic to presidential politics. Moore described a "portable mosh pit" flatbed truck he had rented and filled with about four dozen of Des Moines' finest, spiked-cobalt-blue-haired, slackered, punked-out youth. The truck went to live appearances of every GOP candidate, offering the candidates a unique opportunity to "commune" with the moshers -- but the only one who went for it was (you guessed it) Alan Keyes, who, dressed in a full-length overcoat, was "floated" above the pit to the sounds of some very loud 90s band.

And they ran tape of the moment. Keyes not only did it, but looked to be enjoying the experience!

Now, say what you will about Keyes -- in fact, I still think he's out of his mind politically -- but the man has a great sense of humor.

Third was a major story that somehow slipped by most media outlets -- moves by both major parties that may completely overhaul the pre-convention decision-making process. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that "Republican and Democratic Party officials are exploring ways to change a presidential nominating system that critics say has become too chaotic, too fast for informed decision making and even, in some fundamental ways, undemocratic." The story did make mention of issues such as "front-loading" and a compressed primary/caucus calendar that can decide a candidate months before a convention.

But there's more to the story than the Times mentioned. On the Republican side, there is real -- and growing -- discomfort with the fact that Texas Governor George W. Bush was able to raise so much money so early -- and is now coming across as "all hat and no cattle" to an awful lot of key players in his own party as he lets gaffe after gaffe fly and leaves many with the impression that Dan Quayle is, by comparison, a master campaigner.

There is also the added factor of the Internet -- both parties failed to factor its influence into this election year's equation, and are now regretting it. The instantaneous impact of news has been amplified by the Internet, leaving parties and candidates scrambling to play catch-up in their efforts to learn how to use it as a polling and organizing tool -- and fully understand how to respond to attempts to launch "opposition research" in the era of the likes of Matt Drudge.

Fourth was the characterization of Iowa as a "farm" state. Yes, agriculture -- or more accurately agribusiness -- constitutes about 20 to 30 percent of Iowa's economy, depending on who you want to believe, but the high-tech sector is on the rise there, along with other industries (including pharmaceutical manufacturing). And that segment of the state's economy that is practically addicted to federal ethanol subsidies holds far too much sway over the subject matter of candidate debates, which should be more comprehensive and far-reaching than it has been -- especially on the GOP side, where the obsession with such second- and third-tier issues as the "fate of the American family farm," late-term abortions and self-righteous "Jesus moments" obscure far more pressing matters.

The fifth was actually picked up by a few media outlets -- the waning influence of hard-right evangelical Christians. There were a couple of stories detailing the meltdown over the last year of Iowa's Christian Coalition and a rival group's decision to publish those notorious (some would argue illegal) voter guides. And at least one pundit mentioned that Steve Forbes's second-place showing was more a factor of his high campaign expenditures than his somewhat successful attempts to court socially conservative organizations. And the one man who should have been expected to get solid support from Christian groups -- Gary Bauer -- finished a dismal fifth.

In the end, the press danced around these various "peripheral" issues and played up the "importance" of these ultimately insignificant caucuses -- only outdone in non-importance by the completely corrupt Iowa Straw "Buy-a-Vote" Poll, which my colleague Mac MacArthur skewered for facilitating the influence of the "stretch pants and ethanol" crowd. Except for the Times (and even then, they missed half the story), the press just plain avoided saying the obvious about not only Iowa's "first in the nation" presidential games but the various Tuesday Death Matches to follow -- that the present system is obsolete and perhaps needs to be redesigned from the ground up.

But don't expect them to do that -- at least until the next President is elected. It might hurt circulation and ratings!