'I hate to break it to you': Lib journo Charlotte Alter drops ice-cold politics reality check on her colleagues (who likely won't listen to her)

We don’t usually have the nicest things to say about TIME Magazine, but we believe in giving credit where credit is due.

And TIME national correspondent Charlotte Alter deserves credit for pointing out what so many of her fellow liberal journalists are unwilling to recognize:

Here's why:

Many of the people who ~tweet about politics~ assume that voters behave according to a particular logic

Like: Trump insults women, therefore women will dislike Trump

or

Trump breaks the law, therefore "law and order" Rs will break from him

— Charlotte Alter (@CharlotteAlter) September 4, 2020

YOU THINK voter logic is like:

A > B > C >D

IN ACTUALITY, voter logic is more like:

A > Purple > Banana > 18

— Charlotte Alter (@CharlotteAlter) September 4, 2020

(this is true on both sides by the way, not just MAGA folks)

— Charlotte Alter (@CharlotteAlter) September 4, 2020

Also: the most pervasive bias in political coverage is not left vs. right it's "follows politics" vs. "doesn't follow politics"

By default, nearly everyone who covers politics falls into the "follows politics" category, which makes it really hard to understand people who don't

— Charlotte Alter (@CharlotteAlter) September 4, 2020

So a lot of people who think a lot about politics will be like WHAT ABOUT THE HATCH ACT and normal people are like… wtf are you talking about

— Charlotte Alter (@CharlotteAlter) September 4, 2020

Or politics people will be like "according to polls and modeling, if X% swing in Y direction then Z will happen" and normal people are like… whut

— Charlotte Alter (@CharlotteAlter) September 4, 2020

It's worth noting that man-on-the-street reporting is highly anecdotal! This is by no means a comprehensive analysis because it totally depends on who decides to talk to me.

But taken alongside polls and other data, it can be a helpful way to learn what's landing and what's not

— Charlotte Alter (@CharlotteAlter) September 4, 2020

One more point, re: EQ

A side effect of the data-fication of political expertise is that the people who can read polls are perceived to be smarter than the people who can read people.

So you have all these guys crunching numbers who aren't actually LISTENING to normal ppl

— Charlotte Alter (@CharlotteAlter) September 4, 2020

LISTENING means hearing what people are not saying as well as what they're saying.

LISTENING also means not ambushing voters like "but aren't you upset about X or Y?" or bullying them

LISTENING means making sure they feel like they're being heard and not judged

— Charlotte Alter (@CharlotteAlter) September 4, 2020

just saying there are a lot of politics dudes who love to talk and hate to listen

— Charlotte Alter (@CharlotteAlter) September 4, 2020

Can we get an “amen”?

This is one of the sanest threads (tweets) I have read from a member of the press in some time. It particularly explains how 20% of voters who decide elections, do not think like "you." I follow few journalists, nonetheless you get a follow for this.

— U.S. Route 41 (@USRoute41) September 4, 2020

SPOT. ON. I do man on the street reporting pretty much every day and the disconnect is REAL. When I go back in to the studio it’s like night & day. I’m always like… umm that’s not what I’m hearing on the ground! You can’t listen to these pundits on either side. https://t.co/5twlQgnAeK

— Lawrence B. Jones III (@LawrenceBJones3) September 4, 2020

Once more, with feeling:

A good reminder that Twitter political analysis is often not real people analysis. cc: @BradOnMessage & @BruceHaynesDC https://t.co/WeRacc7Ri6

— Gary Karr (@garykarr) September 4, 2020

Journalists would do well to bear in mind what Alter is saying.

So we expect that they won’t.