MSM

Update: Just to be clear, aside from the 17% figure, what I find objectionable in Nagourney's piece are two inherent contradictions about the youth vote, particularly in its relation to campaigns in the media.

In his piece, Nagourney describes the youth vote as always overhyped and always a no-show. As Nagourney notes, this is the standard cycle of reporting about the youth vote in our media. Yet in practically the same breath, Nagourney feeds that narrative himself with regard to Obama by declaring that this time Obama really could be that candidate (as if the media doesn't say that every time).

The worst part is that Nagourney does this in the face of evidence - which he himself cites - that Obama holds no special lead over Clinton among young voters. My fear here is that young people will turn out in higher numbers than ever at the Iowa Caucus, split their votes between Hillary and Barack (as all polling indicates), and yet, if Obama loses, still get tagged with the "apathetic/no-show" media narrative because they failed to put Obama over the top.

Reporting on young voter turnout should not be tied to any specific candidate - especially not when polling indicates that young voters are splitting their support among two or more of the candidates. The media narrative about youth turnout should not rise or fall with that candidate, or based on any preconceived storylines put in place by the media. Rather, young voters should be judged the same any other portion of the electorate - based purely on the data that accurately reports their turnout. I don't see Nagourney doing that in his piece.
-------------------------------------------

In what is otherwise a very complimentary piece on the effect that Barack Obama is having among young voters, Adam Nagourney, one of the lead political reporters for The New York Times, is using highly misleading information and discredited memes about the youth vote in his latest article for the paper of record.

The truth of the matter is that every four years – as sure as a sunset – stories appear about a surge of interest among younger voters in presidential politics, typically predicting a jump in turn-out that will benefit one campaign or another. It rarely turns out to be true: the percentage of voters under 30 in the total electorate was basically unchanged between 2000 and 2004-- 17 percent, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls. Polls taken by The Times and CBS News last month suggest that there is no difference in the level of support between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton among younger Democratic voters, though they view Mr. Obama slightly more favorably.

But could this finally be the year – and this the candidate – that produces the ever-expected burst of interest among younger voters? Polls aside, the kind of crowds Mr. Obama is drawing – and a walk through his campaign headquarters in Des Moines – certainly suggest that some young people have taken a strong interest in his candidacy.

The 17% number, while correct, is highly misleading, and is the main reason that so many news outlets misreported youth turnout in 2004. While it is true that youth turnout as a share of the electorate remained the same, that figure has no bearing on the actual number of youth who turned out at the polls, or whether or not that number was higher or lower than in previous elections. In raw numbers, 4.3 million more young voters went to the polls in 2004 than in 2000. Turnout among 18-29 year olds rose from 36% to 47% - an increase of 11% points. In targeted battleground states, where dozens of nonprofits and party groups focused their efforts, turnout was up among young voters by 17%.

This could have easily been discovered had Nagourney checked the Young Voter Strategies (pdf) or CIRCLE (pdf) websites. These are the two most reliable sources for data about young voters. Unfortunately, Nagourney seems to have had a storyline established beforehand, and rather than research his piece, he either repeated old, and wrong information, or cherry picked his data.

Nagourney is correct in his assessment that every cycle a candidate comes along claiming that the youth vote will put them over the top. So it's disappointing that not one paragraph after pointing out the flaw in that narrative, Nagourney himself decides to play the same old game and declares that maybe this will be the year!

This narrative has actually done real damage to the reputation of young voters. By hyping expectations, it creates an unfair standard against which actual youth turnout is judged. Of course, this always leads to a disappointment, even in a year like 2004 that saw huge gains in youth voting, and makes young voters the boy who cried wolf of American Politics.

One thing that Nagourney does get right is his assessment of national polls that show both Clinton and Obama basically even among young voters. How that plays out in the early primary states is far from certain. When young voters do head to the caucus in Iowa and primary in New Hampshire, I hope that Nagourney will do his research and won't jump to the conclusion that just because one candidate or another didn't win the nomination young voters again stayed away from the polls

An Op-Ed from Jane Eisner, "vice president for civic initiatives of the National Constitution Center, a Philadelphia museum, and the author of Taking Back the Vote: Getting American Youth Involved in Our Democracy," takes on the topic of turning out young voters. Eisner gets it right in some respects:

How many times did George W. Bush or John Kerry mention young people in accepting their parties' nomination for president? Bush twice briefly, Kerry not at all.

The electoral process doesn't outright exclude young voters anymore, though some structural obstacles do exist. Instead, the political process ignores them. And a well-documented, 30-year decline in civic education in and outside the classroom has left many in this generation ill-informed about the role and accomplishments of government, and ill-versed in the skills of citizenship.

Eisner is right that the major political parties and the candidates didn't talk to young voters. I remember at one point hearing about Kerry's "college tour." The topics of his speech were medicare and social security. His college appearances weren't about speaking to his audience or young voters nationally, they were short-sightedly about combating the current media cycle. And she's right that many young people don't know what government is good for or what it has done for them. Although I'd argue that this is true of most Americans, and is not so much due to the lack of civics classes as the work of 30 years of conservative framing and the failure of the mainstream media to properly report on the role of government.

As for the rest of her piece; it's terrible. The tone speaks down to her core audience - the young people she is looking to activate - and instead looks to score points with journalists or older activists by repeating old memes about the superficiality and fickleness of young voters. After throwing out the tired stat that more people voted for American Idol than the President (not true - American Idol only received 35 million viewers according to Nielson, and voters were allowed to vote repeatedly - can we please put this idea to rest?), her proposed solution neglects both political reality and the nature of the cultural touchstone around which her piece is based.

More after the jump.