OK, I’m a little late on discussing this, but…

Jamison Foser took a break for the August 18th weekly update from Media Matters, leaving it to Marcia Kuntz and Paul Waldman to connect some dots.

Using an analogy to Schrödinger’s cat — in the context of the British terror plot story of last month — they elegantly illustrate how media observers help shape public opinion. And, of course — as Bob Somerby would remind us — the role that the "observer" plays in this is rarely addressed by the media itself.

They write…

…The principle Schrödinger was illustrating is that — in quantum mechanics, at least — the act of observation itself inevitably affects the thing being observed.

We were reminded of the potential effect of Schrödinger’s principle this week. The nature of journalism is such that by casting their gaze upon an event, the news media almost inevitably influence how that event proceeds. By telling us what public opinion is, they influence how we think about our own beliefs and the place they hold among our fellow citizens.

And by telling us what is going to happen, they often make the very course of events they are predicting more likely. While reporters may not be comfortable with the idea, the truth is that self-fulfilling prophecies occur constantly in the news media. For instance, when reporters decide one candidate is the "front-runner," he gets the lion’s share of attention, which makes his victory seem likely, which better enables fundraising, which allows him to hire more staff and air more ads, and so on until that victory actually comes about. The candidate reporters choose to ignore as having little chance of winning will — precisely because the press ignores him — have little chance of winning.

The events of last week, in which British authorities foiled what they said was a plot to blow up airplanes with liquid explosives, seemed again ripe for the observer effect to come into play. The media immediately began to lay the groundwork by which their own patterns of interpretation would serve to create yet another self-fulfilling prophecy. Within hours of the arrests, the media proceeded with Pavlovian predictability to raise the question of whether the thwarting of the alleged plot would provide a boost for President Bush in the polls. Some went so far as to simply assert that it would.

They go on to illustrate three problems with the belief that this is an appropriate way for the media to cover important political events…

Problem 1: The prediction/assertion can be self-fulfilling

It’s simple. When the media assert that a particular event — in this case, the U.K. arrests — will drive up Bush’s poll numbers on the question of national security, they do several things: They suggest to the public that Bush played a significant role in thwarting the terror plot; they tell the public that his purported role is another example of his strength on terror; and they contribute invaluably to Rove’s plan to make this election year about the war on terror rather than about any number of other issues — including the Iraq war — that Rove has decided, probably correctly, poll even worse for Republicans. If, in fact, Bush’s poll numbers were to go up, in no small part because Americans are being told that Bush is strong on terror, that he played a vital role in averting the most heinous terror attack since 9-11, and that he is protecting them, the media would almost certainly tell themselves that they were right. The next time a national security-related event occurred, the media could have looked to this experience and said that "terror helps Bush." And, assuming this pattern held, they would be right again.

Luckily, though, recent polling has suggested that this "observer" effect of the media has been stifled because of the public’s now consistent distrust and lack of confidence in the Bush administration.

Problem 2: The prediction/assertion is made possible by bad or no reporting

If there’s a flaw in our analogy to the "observer effect," it is that it presumes that observation — or, in this case, reporting — is actually occurring. But in order to assert, or even suggest, that the U.K. arrests would give Bush a boost, the media necessarily eschewed reporting, because reporting — learning facts, getting different points of view, analyzing the findings — would have obliterated their premise. In suggesting or asserting that the U.K. arrests are helping or will help Bush, the media are not reporting; they are repeating. That Bush is strong on terror. That Bush played an important role in thwarting the attacks. That Bush’s policies have made us safer. That, to paraphrase Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Republicans make our country safer.

We are not saying that any of those statements is false. We are merely saying that in simply asserting that the public will view Bush more favorably as a result of the U.K. arrests, the media must withhold from viewers and readers — and presumably themselves — contrary evidence and contrary viewpoints.

And they go on in that section to make the case that more aggressive reporting would make this Bush bounce speculation impossible to justify…

In suggesting that the public will view Bush more favorably, the media must also ignore or disparage a report by NBC that the Bush administration rushed the Brits into making the arrests before they were ready. For their audience to be adequately frightened by the imminence of the threat and appropriately grateful that it was thwarted, the media must also ignore the same NBC report that none of the suspected terrorists had bought plane tickets, and that several lacked passports.

And, finally, they discuss the third problem, which I’ve already mentioned above (my emphasis)…

Problem 3: The prediction/assertion is apparently wrong

If professional pride isn’t enough to dissuade the media from repeating Republican spin on an issue as serious and consequential as national security, perhaps this will be: The media’s predictions are wrong. Polling conducted after the U.K. arrests doesn’t bear out the claims of a Bush bounce. As Media Matters wrote:

An August 12 Newsweek poll found that while approval of Bush’s handling of terrorism and homeland security went up from 44 percent in May to 55 percent, Bush’s overall job-approval rating went up only 3 points — from 35 percent in May to 38 percent, within the poll’s margin of error. An August 14 CBS poll found that approval of Bush’s handling of terrorism and Bush’s overall approval rating remained unchanged from July. An August 15 Gallup poll found that Bush’s approval dropped three points from July — 40 percent to 37 percent, within the margin of error — and did not ask about his handling of terrorism. The August 16 Zogby poll put Bush’s approval rating at 34 percent — a 2-point drop from the previous poll, and within the margin of error. The August 17 Pew poll put Bush’s handling of "terrorist threats" at 50 percent — up 3 points from June, within the 4-point margin of error. — while his general approval rating rose 1 point over July’s figure to 37 percent.

Pollsters John Zogby and Andrew Kohut had an explanation for the numbers, which should come as no surprise, except maybe to the media who predicted otherwise: As Media Matters pointed out, they both argued that the U.K. terror arrests had a negligible impact on public opinion because the Iraq war weighs far more heavily on the public consciousness. It remains to be seen whether the media will consider the public’s concern with the disastrous situation in Iraq in making predictions in the future, or whether they will disregard the ample evidence of that preoccupation, as they continue to disregard much of significance on the question of our national security.

All of which is to say that every prophecy need not be self-fulfilling, and though it may not occur in physics, in politics sometimes the thing being observed — the public, in this case — is smart enough not to go along with what it is being told it will do.

So, what really wise and clever thing do I have to say to tie this all in to Vermont politics?

Um… I dunno.

But, I did think that Darren Allen’s reporting of the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post’s political blogs’ takes on the Vermont election was interesting in their collective lack of understanding of Vermont politics (the Big Media outlets, I mean, not Allen).

After hightlighting that the WSJ is already saying that (based on a single suspect poll) there is "doubt on Republican claims that they’ve got a shot at capturing the Vermont House seat", Allen writes…

In any event, the Washington Post doesn’t seem to agree with calling the race all but unwinnable for the Rs. From their "The Fix" political blog today comes this:

"But, if you are looking for places…where we might see a surprise Republican win on Nov. 7, keep an eye on Vermont’s at-large open seat, Georgia’s 12th district, Illinois’ 8th district, West Virginia’s 1st district and South Carolina’s 5th district. None are prime opportunities for Republicans — especially in the current political environment — but each has upset potential."

Only a person mired in stereotypes of Vermont, with no understanding of the history of Vermont politics, would suggest that a Rainville win over Welch would be an "upset" let alone "all but unwinnable."

So, regardless of the reality, the WSJ and Washington Post have already helped define a "Rainville’s the noble underdog" narrative that — because of the prestige of the media outlets involved — can’t help but be perpetuated in other outlets.