CNBC delivers a rabbit punch

College-level speaking not required at the GOP debates

Trump is speaking at a fifth-grade level, according to an analysis of three GOP debates. And Cruz is the only candidate at a high school level.

Source: College-level speaking not required at the GOP debates

Here is a particularly illuminating insight into how liberal media bias works, and how they attempt to slip the punch of those accusing them of it.

In debates rife with confrontation and verbal barbs, there was one thing that wasn’t a big surprise: Nobody was speaking above a high school level.

But the competition isn’t all that great. On the other extreme end we have Ted Cruz. He was a high school valedictorian and has degrees from Princeton and Harvard. Cruz was talented enough to be Texas solicitor general, meaning he represented the state in oral arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even with those kinds of credentials, he’s averaging only a ninth-grade level in the debates. And yet that grade is more advanced than anybody else on the stage.

Eventually – 12 paragraphs in – they finally admit the obvious reason:

Here’s why: Complicated speech doesn’t necessarily help anybody in the polls. There is no value in being over people’s heads, especially if you are trying to win their emotions. As we have described here before, voter support is driven entirely by emotions, not at all by facts.

And finally, in paragraph 14 they even admit

An analysis by researchers at the University of Minnesota showed President Barack Obama’s first three State of the Union addresses had an average grade level of 8.4, the lowest in the study.

before going on to compare the politicians’ statements with those of the Federal Reserve on monetary policy, if you can believe that.

No liberal bias here. Nosir, none whatsoever.
Notice what they’ve done here: they’ve started off crowing about the simple-mindedness of GOP candidates (including a graphic entitled “Are you smarter than a GOP candidate?”), get in a number of cheap shots (subtext: “Republicans are dumb asses, but you knew that already if you routinely read the MSM”), then at the bitter end of the hit piece finally own up to the fact that ALL politicians do this (because the electorate is stupid; hence, e.g., the current occupant of the White House).
So now, when accused of liberal bias, they can brandish the end of the article the way they would a crucifix before a vampire, and claim to have been even-handed, even though not a person in a hundred probably read the article through to that point.
To underscore once again the oft-made point: the media are the problem. That, and the fact that we’ve arguably extended the franchise too far.
4 comments to “CNBC delivers a rabbit punch”
  1. I wonder how the author of this article would characterize the grade level of Shrillery Clinton’s speeches. How much education does one have to have to understand “I’ll give you more Free Shit!”, anyway?

    As one who actually made a living for a while writing for the public, I know the first rule of good writing is: be clear. That’s not rocket surgery; few people achieve success by larding on the big, often obscure words.

    Choom Boy, for all his edumification, usually sounds like a blathering idiot. The reason, though, is not the depth of his (supposedly magnificent) intellect; it is, rather, the shallowness of his ideas.

    The nut of the whole thing, at least to me, is this: I don’t give a rat’s posterior if a politician can craft noble, high-minded phrases that excite people with PhDs. Unless he can master the simple concepts — you know, like patriotism honesty and common sense — he’s a damn dummy.

  2. You know federal policy requires us to draft all research consent forms at the 8th or 9th grade level to ensure “comprehension.”

    Maybe CNBC should look into stuff like that.

Comments are closed.