The Red States? Who choses the colors and why.

For many years there have been complaints that political reporters inject their biases into their stories. Books have been written on the subject and several academics, most notably Robert Lichter of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, have become well known through efforts to prove the point empirically.

The three cable news channels -- Fox, MSNBC and CNN -- provide an around-the-clock mix of news, analysis and commentary. Many of the more recognizable journalists in American today, like Bill O'Reilly and Fred Barnes on Fox and Robert Novak and Mark Shields on CNN, spend more of their time explaining why something happened in Washington than reporting on what occurred.

They shape the attitudes of the country and can move issues to the head of the line. Anyone who doubts this would do well to study the evolution of the current debate over campaign finance regulation.

The punditocracy, as someone once labeled it, has a shorthand all its own. It uses sound bites -- little snippets of language packed with meaning -- in talking the American people. The phrase "campaign finance reform," for example, metamorphosed into a synonym for the specific legislation -- Shays-Meehan in the House and McCain-Feingold in the Senate -- being considered.

The concept and the legislation are not the same thing but, for all intents and purposes, they might as well be. Other proposed reforms, like that advocated by columnist George Will and proposed by Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., were ignored or labeled not serious and shunted aside.

Their push to replace the current system with one based on three principles -- no cash, no foreign money and full disclosure -- may have merit. It did not receive serious consideration, at least in part, because it diverged so dramatically from the punditocracy's definition of "campaign finance reform."

There is another shorthand, originating in the 2000 presidential post-election reporting, that gives me greater pause. It is the red state, blue state divide.

Geographically, more of America voted for George W. Bush then for Al Gore, as the Electoral College map shows. This would not change even if Gore had been declared the winner in Florida.

Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of population, not area. In would be a meaningless statistic -- except for the punditocracy's adoption of "The Red States" as a shorthand reference to the culture and politics of those won by George W. Bush. It is meant as a pejorative. But why are those states red?

The networks use color-coding to show which campaign has won what state. The Republican states generally appear red and the Democrat states appear blue. There may be no deeper meaning here. An examination of the origins of the coding scheme would no doubt show that a network type once decided "R for red, R for Republican" would be a convenient mnemonic. But, as John Morgan, one of America's leading electoral demographers says, they have it backwards.

He says five colors make up the international ideological tableau: red, pink, orange, blue and purple.

Red, as anyone familiar with the Soviet flag should realize, is the communist color. It is symbolic of the blood of the workers shed in the struggle against the capitalist system. In American slang, "red" is a pejorative word meaning a communist.

Pink is the socialist color. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary says that pink, in it's adjective form, refers to those "holding moderately radical and usually socialistic political or economic views."

During the 2001 French municipal elections, pundits on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean predicted that a "pink wave" was in the offing, ready to propel the Socialists into power across France at the local level.

The Irish question aside, moderates are typically identified by the color orange.

This may have something to do with the Dutch House of Orange, from which the British restoration monarchs William and Mary came. More likely, it is that orange is, on the spectrum, a moderate color -- neither hot nor cold. As Morgan points out, it falls in between the red and blue extremes.

Blue is the conservative color. On election night in the United Kingdom, Tory candidates wear blue ribbons. In the U.S. Congress, conservative Democrats seeking to set themselves apart from the liberal party leadership formed a coalition they called "The Blue Dogs."

The last color, purple, is the color of the monarchy. Darker then blue, it is a majestic hue, favored, as Morgan points out, by royalty for the ermine-fringed cloaks they wear on formal occasions.

In the larger scheme of things, this is of little importance. However, given the earlier point about the perception and reality of ideological bias in the media, it is fair to wonder if someone is, through the chromatic inversion, trying to tell us something.

Thanks D1! The assignment of red & blue by the USA Today map was carefully selected and clearly sent a more than subtle message.

Everywhere I've been, red is the enemy or the bad guy or the least favored outcome. Blue or green is good, benevolent or the desired result.

We've had these discussions when the map first appeared, but it's good to get the chance to repeat the obvious.

This is from Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal:
Most GOP strategists believe the Texas tyro wouldn't do nearly as well this year as his 19 percent of 1992. John Morgan, the GOP's best demographer, points out that even in 1992 Mr. Perot carried only 15 of America's 3,000 or so counties. He finished second in just two states, the non-bellwether Maine and Utah, winning no electoral votes. "There is no way Ross Perot can be elected president," Mr. Morgan says. "The only way he'd be in there is as a spoiler, and that argument wasn't made last time." Expect one Dole theme to be: A vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton. Mr. Morgan lists 11 states that George Bush lost by less than 5 percent in 1992 but that Sen. Dole has a good chance to carry, even in a three-man contest: New Hampshire, New Jersey, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Tennessee. Add their 107 electoral votes to Mr. Bush's 168, and Hillary Rodham Clinton goes back to trading commodities.

As I posted the first time, the Huffington article is from April 29, 1996. The Paul Gigot article is from March 25, 1996. One article specifically cites Morgan as predicting a Dole win (and having incorrectly predicted a Bush win in 1992), the other has Morgan saying Dole has a good chance to carry 11 states that Clinton won the first time, which would give Dole the win. Can you show me any articles where Morgan predicts a Clinton win in either election?

The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the bood of patriots.

Within that context, I can accept the blood-red color being associated with the Republicans. The communist appropriation of red as their color is an illegitimate theft, and I don't see any reason to abandon the color to them.

I think that it was after the 1980 Reagan victory over Carter that the Dems complained to the networks about the red=dems=communists vs the blue=repubs=patriots imagery that they felt the maps projected. The networks then switched colors, and the Republicans have been "red" and the Dems have been "blue" on the presidental maps ever since...

"It is something I HAVE thought about. I decided a long time ago that the networks were uncomfortable with using red to denote Democrats because of the association of that color with communism and socialism. It is just a little too close to the truth, and makes them uneasy."

Yes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.