Mainstream media biased against Romney? Four points to consider.

Many supporters of Mitt Romney argue that his potential path toward the White House has been made a lot steeper by the media. Here are some of the main arguments pro and con.

3. Public opinion polls

Kevin Lamarque/REUTERS
Many polls show President Obama taking a lead over Mitt Romney in key swing states. Here Obama is pictured at Desert Pines High School in Las Vegas Sunday.

Polls by news organizations help the public learn what other Americans are thinking. But they can also be misleading if the questions are poorly designed, or if the sample of people surveyed isn't representative.

No, news organizations aren't biased

Editors routinely publish poll results, especially as Election Day draws closer. They'd be reporting it whether the results favored Obama or Romney. In September, as people including Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan raised a ruckus over alleged bias in the media, the latest trend in polling just happened to be moving against Romney in key swing states.

Consider this excerpt from back in 2010, when it was Democrats whose mood was being soured by poll results: "Could the polls be wrong? That's a question I've been asked often in recent months, mostly by Democrats hoping that the dire forecasts produced here and elsewhere turn out to be too pessimistic," Mark Bloomenthal wrote at Huffington Post.

A poll isn't destiny, but often surveys give an accurate sense of how voters are leaning.

Yes, they are

Some conservatives, even ones who say media bias is a big problem, haven't bought into attacks arguing that polls are captive to a liberal conspiracy. But others have argued that polls are more or less flawed, and perhaps in ways that make Obama look stronger. This subject has been covered by the Monitor in recent days, including to note questions about how to gauge party turnout. (And a blog post elsewhere recently, highlighting the arrival of a website called, hints at how this question has become a concern for some onlookers.)

3 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.