Brian, a frequenter commenter here, blogs about an AP story suggesting that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is making Republicans nervous. Brian criticizes the story as being deceptively anti-Bush:
Get the anti-Bush premise and find anyone you can to support it on the record. Just look at the nobodies quoted.
Apart from quoting some GOP operatives (probably not what Brian meant by nobodies), the article quotes two moviegoers in Des Moines and two in Columbia, South Carolina. The two Iowans were quoted as saying that the movie raised questions. One of the South Carolinians said he walked out of the movie; the other said the movie pushed her to the left a little.
Based on what I remember being taught in journalism school, this is pretty typical stuff: take a national story ("what is the impact of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' on the election?") and localize it ("how are people in Des Moines responding to the movie?"). Of course, the problem with this kind of story is, how representative are the people quoted in the story? Were they the only ones who were willing to talk to the reporter? (Potential self-selection bias.) Were they quoted in the story because they fit the author's "story"? (Actual selection bias.)
In any event, the article does get at something I've wondered about, which is, what is the impact of Michael Moore's flick? Initially, I figured that it would have no impact, since those who hate the Bush Administration will love the movie and vice versa. However, a colleague of mine pointed out that for those who are truly undecided, the movie, by making Bush look bad, should help Kerry. That's probably right.
Any story about "Fahrenheit 9/11" (old news) that is taking up ink, lines, and valuable "Section A" space in lieu of Sandy Berger using his pants as a diplomatic pouch (new news) is blatantly anti-Bush. You have a story of a former National Security Advisor *admitting to taking* top secret-code word documents from the National Archives, and then *admitting to losing* those documents, and the AP chooses to pursue a story about a mockumentry. (for the mockumentry dig see http://www.pantagraph.com/flick/flick0723.html) Sheesh.
Posted by: Law Monkey | July 23, 2004 at 07:06 PM
I'm not sure I agree. While you could argue that the Sandy Berger story is more topical and of greater importance, this need not be an either/or situation. No doubt AP is pursuing both stories, and the Des Moines reporter probably didn't have a local angle to chase on the Berger story (yet).
Posted by: Tung Yin | July 23, 2004 at 07:50 PM
Professor,
I appreciate the mention, but I may have sent you the wrong link.
This is the correct one:
http://djslybri.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_djslybri_archive.html#109044905378177270
I wanted your thoughts on a law class at the U of Penn writing Shari'a law for the Maldives. I still want to hear what you have to say on that...Thanks!!
Posted by: Brian | July 24, 2004 at 12:29 AM
"However, a colleague of mine pointed out that for those who are truly undecided, the movie, by making Bush look bad, should help Kerry."
Isn't this the whole reason for the DNC to bother helping promote the film?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | July 27, 2004 at 01:04 PM