Nuance: Don't leave home without it

I'm not sure when that Funny Thing happened. But somewhere on the way to the proverbial Forum, mainstream political journalists stopped doing nuance. Or so it seems. Today, political reporters are weighing in on Obama's bad poll numbers like an excited classroom of kindergarteners all talking at once. It's the story du jour. The blaring headline on the Washington Post sums up the general tenor well: "Obama ratings sink to new lows as hope fades." Right. Ace Post reporters Jon Cohen and Dan Balz solemnly note that by "this time in their presidencies, approval ratings for both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — who also suffered serious midterm setbacks during their first term — had settled safely above the 50 percent mark. Both then stayed in positive territory throughout their reelection campaigns." 'Tis true, too. So is Obama doomed (yet again), as the reporters imply? Nope. Cohen-Balz left out a small but critical detail: Both Reagan and Clinton were presiding over clearly improving economies by this point. Also, as Andrew Sullivan noted, despite the "horrific numbers," Obama is "still beating or matching his likeliest GOP opponents." Plus, 70% of Americans still like the president. Context makes a difference, especially for the low-information reader/voter. Nuance. Don't leave home without it.