Ray Malone's Commentary

I have no idea what the polls will do in the coming days. What I do is look at the past and try to spot trends that may help predict the future. Here are some events from the past that may be of value in predicting Obama's future

Initially we saw very little of Obama except his prepared speeches delivered while reading the script from TelePrompTers. They were very well crafted and delivered before large audiences to huge media applause. But as time goes on the initial image becomes clearer. The faults start to show though. The nose in the air looking into space becomes the look of an egotistical ego driven politician posing for worshipers. The reaction "I am not one of his worshipers!", is irresistible.

Let me take you back to 1980 to teach a media lesson. The media was video taping Reagan's informal talks with the media, and editing the tapes to make him look as bad as possible. So Reagan stopped talking to the media. That left the media with video from his stump speech shot each day.

So to have something to air the media took a different 10 second excerpt from that days Reagan speech and played one each day. They preceded the 10 second excerpt of Reagan on the stump, with a negative 10 second intro, then the local reporter did a negative 10 seconds on Reagan, then 10 seconds of Ronald Reagan, followed by 10 seconds of negative local report followed by 10 seconds of negative anchor coverage. Thus they had ratio of 40 seconds of negative Reagan coverage to 10 seconds of Reagan himself making a short statement.

The media was certain that to stop this obviously unfair attack, Reagan's Handlers (actually Ronald Reagan's handler was Ronald Reagan) would make him available to the media again. But that did not happen. They ran this 4 to 1 negative coverage of Reagan right up to the election. So no one could accuse them of being really unfair they did the same 40 to 10 coverage of Carter. The only slight difference was the Carter coverage by the reporters and anchors was very positive about Carter.

The media could not figure it out. Reagan kept going up in the polls. They thought it made no sense. How could he keep gaining in the polls. But the effect is logical. Have the viewer told twice that what you are about to see is not of presidential caliber. Then show the person exhibiting presidential caliber. Then follow that with two people telling you what you just saw was not of presidential caliber. Do I have to tell you that would not work? Those geniuses in the media were certain it would work and when it didn't they thought they weren't doing it enough.

Something similar happened years earlier when Reagan was running for reelection as Governor of California. Tom Brokaw was working at KNBC in LA. He did a KNBC version of Meet the Press. Tom had prepared an attack on Reagan and his policies that was designed to destroy Reagan. Tom said he was sure that at the first break in the live show that Reagan would be talking to Ed Meese and Cap Weinberger begging for advice. Cap and Ed had come to the studio with Reagan.

So Brokaw in the first 10 minutes went after Reagan tooth and nail. And Reagan never even stopped smiling. He just made what Brokaw thought were weak responses. And at the first break, Brokaw was shocked when Reagan did not ask his advisers for help. He said Reagan took his handkerchief and wiped some imaginary dust off his perfectly shined shoes. After the program was over Brokaw was certain that Reagan's poll numbers would fall. He said he was astounded to find the Monday tracking poll had Reagan up by an additional couple of points. Apparently no one told Tom the reason for his failure to nail Reagan's hide to the NBC Studio walls. The reason was Brokaw came across like an obnoxious a-hole. Reagan came across as a very nice,friendly and good guy. Brokaw had never learned that a-holes win few popularity contests when going against nice guys.

My point is the one the media seems to have never learned. Let met put it this way. The media can not make viewers believe that an honest competent and very good man is a dumb oaf. NOT IF THEY PUT THE OBJECT OF THEIR SCORN ON THE AIR FOR EVEN 10 SECONDS. And the media cannot make viewers believe that a dumb egotistical oaf is an honest competent and very good man. NOT IF THEY PUT THE EGOTISTICAL OAF ON THE AIR FOR EVEN 10 SECONDS.

The anchor and local reporters caused the voters to expect the exact opposite of what they saw in Reagan. When the media tells viewers what they are about to see, and that is NOT what they see, and then afterwards tells them what they saw was NOT what they see, it is the media that gets hurt. It is the object of their scorn that gains support. And by the same token when the media tells you what you are about to see is fantastic, and what you see is not, and then the media tells you what you just saw was fantastic, it has the opposite effect. Painting someone better than they are is a good way to hurt that person's public approval. And if Jimmy Carter were a bit smarter he could tell you what Reagan caused the networks to do to him. Reagan did not try to stop the media bias. Why? Because they were hurting Carter and helping Reagan. Reagan had zero reasons to try to stop the media from doing what it was doing.

George Bush knows the value of low expectations. He has, in his 4 elections, always allowed the media to paint him as less than he is. Mis-underestimation is the term. That way the voters always saw Bush as MORE than what the media said he was.

It is what Reagan did as well. Reagan as president would be almost certain that a bill was going to pass. But he would tell the press that the prospects for the bill he wanted so badly were not as good as he had hoped they would be. He told the media was going to call in a lot of senators and talk to them. Reagan would add, "But don't expect me to accomplish the impossible. This bill could very well go down in defeat." Reagan would call in a bunch of senators and talk to them as the media ran stories saying this time Reagan is going down in defeat ... for a change. When the bill passed the press would write stories about how the GREAT COMMUNICATOR ONCE AGAIN ACCOMPLISHED THE IMPOSSIBLE.

My point is Obama has the press presenting him as the greatest. And he is not. That is very counter productive. It would be better if they presented him as not nearly as good as he is.. then voters would be saying... HE IS A LOT BETTER THAN THEY SAY HE IS. Rather than.. "HE IS NOTHING LIKE WHAT I EXPECTED HIM TO BE.. I DON'T CARE MUCH FOR HIM! HE IS TOO FULL OF HIMSELF!!!"

Let me give you another example of a failed commercial. Many years ago a beer company wanted to make their beer popular with men. So they did a commercial of a big tough cool stud walking into a bar. Other men moved away in obvious total respect so he could have a huge space at the bar. He in a big manly voice ordered the brand of beer. And the bartender subserviently and with much respect hurried to get the beer and to carefully pour it into the glass. Then the tough stud lifted his glass in obvious pleasure as the camera panned to the other end of they bar where an obviously less than cool dude had been watching. The not so cool dude changed his order to the same brand as the cool stud.

The idea was that if you want to be a tough powerful stud other men look up to you will drink this beer. What happened? Disaster! The beer company lost half its customers. MEN DO NOT WANT TO BE TOUGH STUDS THAT OTHER MEN DON'T EXPECT TO ASSOCIATE WITH. MEN WANT TO BE A GUY THAT OTHER MEN LIKE TO BE AROUND. They do Not want to be the guy other men have to make room for. Men do not want to be THE ONE or even around THE ONE or even serve under THE ONE. THEY WANT TO BE ONE OF THE GUYS and they want THE GUY IN CHARGE to be just like them.

Let me make my point another way. How many Messiahs do you know of that the masses did not end up wanting crucified?