|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/19/2008 8:37:08 AM
|
|
|
huskarine
Posts: 444
Joined: 7/31/2008
From: Wheaton, IL
Status: offline
|
actually, i am not surprised at all of them admitting it...but do you blame them??? their only publishing what sells anyway...
the media is a business too...
_____________________________
"Success is equated with excess/the ambition for excess wrecks us/as the top of the mind becomes the bottom line/when success is equated with excess" -Switchfoot "American Dream"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/19/2008 8:40:47 AM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
actually, i am not surprised at all of them admitting it...but do you blame them??? their only publishing what sells anyway...
the media is a business too...
Oh, I definitely agree about the business aspect... but page 1 stories? The objectionable point, to me, is that we are always told about how "objective" journalist are supposed to be. And because of that objectivity, the press is given great freedoms in this country. As soon as the media becomes a tool of one party we lose a big part of our national freedom.
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/20/2008 3:06:18 PM
|
|
|
djv1255
Posts: 176
Joined: 8/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Did you know Obama visited the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor when he was in Hawaii?
Should it have gotten wall to wall coverage?
_____________________________
Favorite Photo Blogs: US Military Doing Good Deeds
US Torture and Atrocities (the blog name is poking fun at liberals not our soldiers)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 1:45:03 PM
|
|
|
huskarine
Posts: 444
Joined: 7/31/2008
From: Wheaton, IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
quote:
ORIGINAL: huskarine
actually, i am not surprised at all of them admitting it...but do you blame them??? their only publishing what sells anyway...
the media is a business too...
Oh, I definitely agree about the business aspect... but page 1 stories? The objectionable point, to me, is that we are always told about how "objective" journalist are supposed to be. And because of that objectivity, the press is given great freedoms in this country. As soon as the media becomes a tool of one party we lose a big part of our national freedom.
agreed, but we are becoming dumber as well by not checking as many sources as we can, while making assumptions without all of the needed information to draw a single conclusion logically...
having bias in reporting was bound to happen, and for the government to restrict it would be censorship, and that is wrong (look at the russians and their media)...
it is as if we were set to fail from the start in this manner.
_____________________________
"Success is equated with excess/the ambition for excess wrecks us/as the top of the mind becomes the bottom line/when success is equated with excess" -Switchfoot "American Dream"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 1:50:09 PM
|
|
|
SwedishCovenant
Posts: 606
Joined: 8/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
How's this for an admission of media bias? LINK.
With all the media exposure it is interesting that Obama just can't get much of a boost in the polls. 
Maybe the "Drive by" media can read the polls also and are pulling back from thier position of "Coronationn" of the Messiah like rats leaving a sinking ship.
The only way the polls will go up is for B. Hussein Obama to nominate Clinton as VP canddidate. And if she is VP then the odds in Vegas on Obama not making it throigh the first 6 monts will also go up.
Thanks
RC
There you go again, using the 'messiah' reference when it was the McCAin campaign who first came up with the (sneering innuendo) term, and only McCainophyles hellbent on bashing Obama who try to apply it to him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 1:51:40 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 727
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
How's this for an admission of media bias? LINK.
With all the media exposure it is interesting that Obama just can't get much of a boost in the polls.
If I recall, Obama gets the lion's share of the coverage, but most of it is negative.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 2:20:45 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
Interesting...
I must live in a parallel universe because the only coverage I ever hear about Obama is positive... in TEXAS - not exactly a bastion of liberalism and believe it or not I don't watch FOX news - don't have cable.
I hate to quibble, but I guess I just don't believe it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 2:22:53 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 727
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
We are both biased.
But *I* have a study!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 2:24:17 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7865
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
If I recall, Obama gets the lion's share of the coverage, but most of it is negative.
I noticed that the report on this study doesn't cite a single negative report.
Of course, Obama has bben on the cover of Time 7 times this year - we all know how negative that can be.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 2:31:23 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 727
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
I noticed that the report on this study doesn't site a single positive report.
Of course, Obama has been noted to spark the interests of newsrooms by unleashing terrorist fist jabs - we all know how positive that can be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 3:16:38 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 727
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
ORIGINAL: huangshan
I noticed that the report on this study doesn't site a single positive report.
Of course, Obama has been noted to spark the interests of newsrooms by unleashing terrorist fist jabs - we all know how positive that can be.
Uh, typically if you claim something you at least show some proof of it. Why make a claim and then try to disprove it? Where is the logic?
You'll note that we are making a snide anecdotal back-and-forth about the report on the study. That is, the L.A. Times says the George Mason study says such-and-such, but said story is light on specifics on said study.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 3:36:46 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7865
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
You'll note that we are making a snide anecdotal back-and-forth about the report on the study. That is, the L.A. Times says the George Mason study says such-and-such, but said story is light on specifics on said study.
Does anyone know of any negative stories by the main stream press on Obama? I read a lot of stuff, and I can't recall one.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 9:26:18 PM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1205
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huangshan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
How's this for an admission of media bias? LINK.
With all the media exposure it is interesting that Obama just can't get much of a boost in the polls.
If I recall, Obama gets the lion's share of the coverage, but most of it is negative.
I agree with this.
Obama gets more coverage, but the McCain camp is much better at making negative things "stick" in the media as well as at grabbing headlines.
For the past month or so, for example, the MCCain camp will float a criticism of Obama, and that criticism will reverberate in the media, grabbing headlines. The Obama camp responds, of course, but the response is always buried within the article, while the criticism is the headline.
Most of the time the headline is all anyone will see, and it's enough to make the criticism on its own, regardless of if the criticism lacks evidence or is unfair, as people will forget it a few days later once its unfairness or erroneousness is exposed, and everyone has already moved on to the next thing. All that will stick in their brain is "Obama bad."
The Obama camp will try to retaliate, but usually they are either too slow or their criticisms will be less "Sensational" than the McCain camp (so for example, part of the reason why the Paris Hilton ad was in the media for so long and got so much attention was its outrageousness and newness -which gives it a certain sensational aspect that the media loves to talk about and debate).
The ironic thing about Republicans crying "bias" in the media is that while I have no doubt that most journalists lean liberal, the Republicans have always been much better at manipulating the media to get messages out. To the point that, the idea that the media is biased (however untrue or true it may be) has actually become one of their biggest political weapons. Blaming the media, whether it's untrue or true, is always a positive campaign tactic for any republican candidate (McCain does it all the time), as it makes themselves out to be "underdogs" and "victims" all while strengthening their base.
Plus, I don't think there's any denying that had Obama made some of the missteps on Iraq that McCain had made in the early days (i.e. confusing Sunnis and Shiites, confusing the boarders, etc) he would be completely massacred. The election would have been over for him, but McCain seems much more able to survive it. I'm not sure if that's due merely to Obama's newness, the Obama campaign's reluctance to attack boldly, or something else.
_____________________________
Hell is other Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 9:31:41 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2744
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
There you go again, using the 'messiah' reference when it was the McCAin campaign who first came up with the (sneering innuendo) term,
WRONG. It is Hillary that first made a comment about the Candy Man's remark that when he is elected the seas will stop their rise. If this comment doesn't come from someone with a messiah complex I don't know what does.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 9:37:56 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1033
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant
There you go again, using the 'messiah' reference when it was the McCAin campaign who first came up with the (sneering innuendo) term, and only McCainophyles hellbent on bashing Obama who try to apply it to him.
Perhaps it is the "McCainophyles" who use the (sneering innuendo) term.
The Obamamaniacs use the (adoring, fanatical) term.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 9:38:51 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2744
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
Blaming the media, whether it's untrue or true
I challange you to go back and review presidential endorsements from the major newspapers over the past 25 years and you will see most endorsed the democratic candidate.
The local mullet-wraper known as the "Nuisance and Disturber" always throws in a Rebublication endorsement, usually for dog-catcher, so they can't be accused of being a total Democratic hack paper.
Go to most J-schools and you will see nary a Republican.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Washington Post admits to Obama overcoverage - 8/21/2008 10:29:35 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 727
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: henny
quote:
ORIGINAL: huangshan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
How's this for an admission of media bias? LINK.
With all the media exposure it is interesting that Obama just can't get much of a boost in the polls.
If I recall, Obama gets the lion's share of the coverage, but most of it is negative.
I agree with this.
Obama gets more coverage, but the McCain camp is much better at making negative things "stick" in the media as well as at grabbing headlines.
For the past month or so, for example, the MCCain camp will float a criticism of Obama, and that criticism will reverberate in the media, grabbing headlines. The Obama camp responds, of course, but the response is always buried within the article, while the criticism is the headline.
Most of the time the headline is all anyone will see, and it's enough to make the criticism on its own, regardless of if the criticism lacks evidence or is unfair, as people will forget it a few days later once its unfairness or erroneousness is exposed, and everyone has already moved on to the next thing. All that will stick in their brain is "Obama bad."
The Obama camp will try to retaliate, but usually they are either too slow or their criticisms will be less "Sensational" than the McCain camp (so for example, part of the reason why the Paris Hilton ad was in the media for so long and got so much attention was its outrageousness and newness -which gives it a certain sensational aspect that the media loves to talk about and debate).
The ironic thing about Republicans crying "bias" in the media is that while I have no doubt that most journalists lean liberal, the Republicans have always been much better at manipulating the media to get messages out. To the point that, the idea that the media is biased (however untrue or true it may be) has actually become one of their biggest political weapons. Blaming the media, whether it's untrue or true, is always a positive campaign tactic for any republican candidate (McCain does it all the time), as it makes themselves out to be "underdogs" and "victims" all while strengthening their base.
Plus, I don't think there's any denying that had Obama made some of the missteps on Iraq that McCain had made in the early days (i.e. confusing Sunnis and Shiites, confusing the boarders, etc) he would be completely massacred. The election would have been over for him, but McCain seems much more able to survive it. I'm not sure if that's due merely to Obama's newness, the Obama campaign's reluctance to attack boldly, or something else.
Here is a recent exchange in the media:
JIM LEHRER: Yes. What about the McCain lobbyist who lobbied for Georgia and is now McCain’s number-one foreign affairs adviser? Is that going to come up to bite McCain more, do you think?
RUTH MARCUS: So the Obama campaign hopes. I look at this on two different levels. On the substantive level, anybody who knows Senator McCain knows that he would have the same views on Georgia no matter what lobbyist came to talk to him. He feels this one in his bones. And he wasn’t going to — this is not a shift in position because some lobbyist came and whispered in his ear.
Here is analysis of this by Matthew Yglesias:
It’s worth noting the extraordinary level of benefit of the doubt that John McCain tends to get from the press, including from people who aren’t necessarily hugely sympathetic to his policy agenda. Normally reporters are ruthless about the motives behind politicians’ decisions, but everything McCain does is above question. Beyond that, how much better is it for McCain to be the kind of guy whose views on U.S.-Russia relations are identical to those that you would have if you were a paid agent of a foreign government? Of course it’s possible that America’s interests vis-à-vis Russia are identical to Georgia’s interests, but that doesn’t seem very likely to me.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
