Confession

Normally, I hate stories like this. They're trying to poll what reality is. They purport to tell us what we should be able to see and judge ourselves. The non-rational truth is that many people are influenced by social consensus to believe things they didn't actually conclude themselves. (See Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.) In evolutionary terms, this is adaptive for social species (humans, ants, etc.), but I digress.

In politics, the usual rule is that perception is reality, but I obstinately resist the claim that anything besides reality is actually reality. Yeah, I'm old fashioned that way. My blog-friend Winston Smith at Philosoraptor (we've exchanged links, but it doesn't mean we're married) may be relieved to hear that I believe this, despite my occasional hedged defense of the phrase 'socially constructed'.

Still, the CNN polling story does show at least that people are seeing through the bullshit that we call our mass media. But, sure, I agree that Obama's more compassionate, better at the economy, smarter, a better leader, etc., so of course I like it.

Everybody rationalizes. Why shouldn't I?

Update: Ditto this story about the debate.

Sing this corrosion to me

Why work for a scoop when you can predict the future? I'll give Chris Cillizza this: At least, he matched up his predictions against reality and found them often wanting.

So, what's the harm in it? Here's how it works:

• Reporters, whose job is to report what has actually happened, give their take on the conventional wisdom on the press bus. There's some variation from one reporter to the next but not enough - that's why it's the conventional wisdom. Besides, they really want not to be blatantly wrong.
  
• Once the CW goes out under their names, they commit to it. To stay consistent, they then are much more likely to write stories that reinforce their predictions.

If you think this is nonsense, read Influence, by Robert Cialdini. Ch. 3, "Commitment and Consistency", should convince you. Here's the opening:

A study done by a pair of Canadian psychologists uncovered something fascinating about people at the racetrack: Just after placing a bet, they are much more confident of their horse's chances of winning than they are immediately before laying down that bet.

It should be just as unethical for a reporter to place bets as it was for Pete Rose.