Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 30, 2008, 12:28:33 PM
-
Is he ready to lead? No.
McCain ad calls Obama 'biggest celebrity in the world'
Posted: 12:50 PM ET
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
(CNN) — Britney Spears, Paris Hilton…Barack Obama?
A new campaign ad from John McCain — which flashes shots of the two aforementioned megacelebrities — calls Barack Obama "the biggest celebrity in the world," but asks, "Is he ready to lead."
"He's the biggest celebrity in the world. But, is he ready to lead? With gas prices soaring, Barack Obama says no to offshore drilling. And, says he'll raise taxes on electricity. Higher taxes, more foreign oil, that's the real Obama," the ad's narrator says while crowds screaming, "Obama!" are shown.
Responding to the ad, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said, "On a day when major news organizations across the country are taking Senator McCain to task for a steady stream of false, negative attacks, his campaign has launched yet another. Or, as some might say, ‘Oops! He did it again.’"
The ad is the latest in a string of hard-hitting television commercials from the McCain campaign. Earlier spots suggest Obama is playing politics with the Iraq war, is against funding American troops, and bears some responsibility for high gas prices.
In a conference call with reporters announcing the ad, McCain adviser Rick Davis said of Obama's campaign coverage, "The focus on media, on events and activities, is much more something you'd expect from someone releasing a new movie."
"What we decided to do was find the top three international celebrities in the world," he said. "And I would say that from our estimation Britney and Paris came in second and third. So from our perspective, we have the biggest three celebrities in the world."
Davis also brushed aside suggestions the ad will be viewed by the American public as going negative.
"Will people think of this as negative advertising? Look, it’s the most entertaining thing I've seen on TV in a while. I wouldn't anticipate anything about this being negative," he said.
Steve Schmidt, another top McCain adviser also said it was accurate to compare Obama to the two celebrities who, as one reporter said on the call, are often portrayed as "frivolous and irresponsible."
"I don’t poll Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, but I know they're international celebrities, so apples to apples," he said.
A McCain advisor also told CNN's Dana Bash the ad targets Obama's "outrageous, narcissistic statements."
“It has not gone unnoticed by this campaign that Obama makes outrageous, narcissistic statements suggesting that his candidacy is what the world has been waiting for. Excuse me?” the adviser said. “What’s going to happen when he parts the sea? What about all the fish in the middle?” this adviser said with biting sarcasm.
The ad will run in 11 key battleground states — Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/30/mccain-ad-calls-obama-biggest-celebrity-in-the-world/#more-10515
-
Is he ready to lead? No.
you are probably right.
but, bush has pissed on people's cheerios for 8 years, then told them to piss off if they didn't like it.
so, obammers is leading in 99% of the polls as a result.
-
McCain's trailing Obama badly, even with Karl Rove's help.
McCain is getting the better media coverage from the liberla media and he still can't make a dent in the Obama armor.
In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias Cable talking heads accuse broadcast networks of liberal bias -- but a think tank finds that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks.
...when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story
We have to remember, John McCain is the original media sweetheart--straight talk, straight shooter, maverick--the media eats that up.
When it comes to media bias, McCain is the winner.
-
McCain's trailing Obama badly, even with Karl Rove's help.
McCain is getting the better media coverage from the liberla media and he still can't make a dent in the Obama armor.
Are you drinking booze this morning? Or is it afternoon already over there? :D (j/k) McCain is hardly "trailing Obama badly." It's a deadheat and has been for weeks.
Obama clearly gets the better media coverage:
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT," ADVISED NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, CLINTON: Absolutely. I do think the coverage has been unbalanced. "The Tyndall Report," which measures these things, he finds that the network news programs have devoted far more time to Obama than they have to McCain.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html
-
It's a deadheat and has been for weeks.
How many polls does Mccain lead in?
How many polls does Obama lead in?
if it's a dead heat, the numbers should be close, em?
-
Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 07/18 - 07/29 -- 46.2 43.8 Obama +2.4
Gallup Tracking 07/27 - 07/29 2682 RV 46 42 Obama +4.0
Rasmussen Tracking 07/27 - 07/29 3000 LV 48 46 Obama +2.0
USA Today/Gallup 07/25 - 07/27 791 LV 45 49 McCain +4.0
Democracy Corps (D) 07/21 - 07/24 1004 LV 50 45 Obama +5.0
FOX News 07/22 - 07/23 900 RV 41 40 Obama +1.0
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 07/18 - 07/21 1003 RV 47 41 Obama +6.0
He're what some of u guys aren't getting. We have a bad economy, high gas prices. an unpopular war and yet....the biggest lead this guy has from day to day is 6 points. He should be burying McCain, not because he's McCain, but because he'sa repub. Its not a reflection a McCain as it is on the empty suit he's running against. As much as many hate Hil, her numbers would be better because she's better at presenting her facts. The Dems had better numbers with the last two idiots they put up. This won't mean anthing until the debates.
-
This won't mean anthing until the debates.
I agree there.
Who do you think Americans will "like" more in the debates?
That's usually the guy who wins...
-
Are you drinking booze this morning? Or is it afternoon already over there? :D (j/k) McCain is hardly "trailing Obama badly." It's a deadheat and has been for weeks.
Obama clearly gets the better media coverage:
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT," ADVISED NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, CLINTON: Absolutely. I do think the coverage has been unbalanced. "The Tyndall Report," which measures these things, he finds that the network news programs have devoted far more time to Obama than they have to McCain.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html
Yes...yes I am drinking. Have you seen the study I linked? The press has been FAR MORE critical of Obama than McCain.
So all that face time is so that the Liberal Media can throw eggs at Obama.
-
I agree there.
Who do you think Americans will "like" more in the debates?
That's usually the guy who wins...
I disagree with this.
Bush made a royal ass out of himself at the debates against Kerry and Kerry still lost. Kerry wiped the mat with Bush at each debate.
The winner will be determined, for the most part, by which candidate can sling the most mud effectively.
-
Yes...yes I am drinking. Have you seen the study I linked? The press has been FAR MORE critical of Obama than McCain.
So all that face time is so that the Liberal Media can throw eggs at Obama.
I browsed it. I don't believe it. Maybe I’m just not watching at the right time, but I trust my own eyes. Are you telling me you haven't noticed the media infatuation with Obama? How the heck is a journalist going to talk about getting shivers down his leg and maintain his objectivity?
I think The Tyndall Report Gergen mentioned is right. The media coverage has been unbalanced.
-
Oh god, Its Decker the typical liberal lunatic weasel ala Alan Colmes who refuses to acknowledge reality and bases all of his opinions on biased and unsubstantiated studies. Trying to reason with you is like nailing jello to a wall. If your too stupid or too brainwashed to acknowledge Obama gets favoritism from the media, your either campaigning for Obama or your mother was on methadone when she was pregnant with you. Either way the results the same. Spains government isn't socialist, 911 was an inside job, buddists are as likely as muslims to commit acts of terror, the pope isn't catholic, The Dark Knight is actually a documentary shot in real time by Michael Moore, the list goes on and on. Take off the aluminum foil hat and get down from your roof.
-
Spains government isn't socialist, 911 was an inside job, buddists are as likely as muslims to commit acts of terror, the pope isn't catholic, The Dark Knight is actually a documentary shot in real time by Michael Moore, the list goes on and on. Take off the aluminum foil hat and get down from your roof.
Haha :D
-
911 was an inside job
Good call, bro. 67% of Americans agree with your statement.
-
LMAOOOOOOOO 67% of what americans?
According to whom? Based on what? Farenheight 911? Loose Change? The fabrications, outright lies, falsehoods and fairytales from both moronic films have been debunked repeatedly. If 67% of actual americans actually believed that it was an inside job, dont you think this farce of a congress would have brought impeachment charges for that and not this nonsensical garbage about Iraq?
Get real dude.
-
LMAOOOOOOOO 67% of what americans?
According to whom? Based on what? Farenheight 911? Loose Change? The fabrications, outright lies, falsehoods and fairytales from both moronic films have been debunked repeatedly. If 67% of actual americans actually believed that it was an inside job, dont you think this farce of a congress would have brought impeachment charges for that and not this nonsensical garbage about Iraq?
Get real dude.
He's a bullshit artist. I thought it was 67% wanted another investigation. Now it's 67% know for a fact it was an inside job? Which is it?
-
Oh god, Its Decker the typical liberal lunatic weasel ala Alan Colmes who refuses to acknowledge reality and bases all of his opinions on biased and unsubstantiated studies. Trying to reason with you is like nailing jello to a wall. If your too stupid or too brainwashed to acknowledge Obama gets favoritism from the media, your either campaigning for Obama or your mother was on methadone when she was pregnant with you. Either way the results the same. Spains government isn't socialist, 911 was an inside job, buddists are as likely as muslims to commit acts of terror, the pope isn't catholic, The Dark Knight is actually a documentary shot in real time by Michael Moore, the list goes on and on. Take off the aluminum foil hat and get down from your roof.
I posted a study to support my point, assface. Where's your proof besides your ranted namecalling?
What's more pathetic than bigmouthed knownothing named George Whorewell?
You'll have to let me know b/c I can't think of anything either.
-
I finally saw this ad this morning and I just have to say McCain is a goddam disgrace. This type of propaganda lets me know that Karl Rove is pulling the McCain strings.
Why bring up issues when you can connect Obama to Britney and the other one?
I'm glad she's slapping McCain down b/c he did not seek her permission to use her likeness in the ad.
-
Are you drinking booze this morning? Or is it afternoon already over there? :D (j/k) McCain is hardly "trailing Obama badly." It's a deadheat and has been for weeks.
...
Obama leads McCain by over 10 points in the great swing state of Wisconsin.
-
Are you drinking booze this morning? Or is it afternoon already over there? :D (j/k) McCain is hardly "trailing Obama badly." It's a deadheat and has been for weeks.
Obama clearly gets the better media coverage:
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT," ADVISED NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, CLINTON: Absolutely. I do think the coverage has been unbalanced. "The Tyndall Report," which measures these things, he finds that the network news programs have devoted far more time to Obama than they have to McCain.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html
In this case "better" can only mean MORE coverage but not positive coverage.
Obama got more coverage but that coverage was overwhelmingly NEGATIVE
that's the point
McCain's ad smacks of desperation to me and I think it will only help Obama, especially given America's love of celebrity.
-
Msn covers obama positively.
FOX covers him negatively.
Did ya notice nobody is covering mccain at all? Stale old awkward men aren't good for ratings.
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story
According to this story the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) had more coverage of Obama but the coverage was 72% negative
-
Decker pipe down. Or better yet go through your litany of obscure, meaningless studies that contradict reality and are devoid of any independent verification to prove another argument based on fiction. What is your mission today? Going to prove that transfats cause genital warts? Thunderstorms are a part of the republican conspiracy to get government contracts with companies that make umbrellas? Hows the reception on that aluminum foil hat by the way?
Moving on there are two reasons why this poll is complete horseshit.
1) This poll gives a vague and incomprehensible definition of what constitutes negative or positive.
The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.
The positive and negative remarks about each candidate are then totaled to calculate the percentages that cut for and against them.
- OK, so by that estimation, any assertion by a reporter that says something based on relevant data related to polling numbers is NEGATIVE? If someone said that McCain has a problem with minorities and people under 40 is that a NEGATIVE? I'd call it a fact, and so would anyone else with half a brain in their head.
2) Can anyone honestly make the argument that this poll isn't an obvious ploy to deflect the obvious and deserved criticism of the press and its coverage of the election? Think about it this way. If, as the study claims, Obama is being portrayed "negatively" ( whatever that means) 72% of the time when he is mentioned, but is being covered three times more by the press, wouldn't that still mean he is getting more positive coverage than McCain who is being negatively portrayed 57% percent of the time? If your mentioned much, much, much less and given "negative coverage" 15% less than the other guy, the other guy still HAS AN OBVIOUS ADVANTAGE OVER YOU.
Visual images and other more subjective cues are not assessed. But the tracking applies a measure of analytical rigor to a field rife with seat-of-the-pants fulminations.
What the fuck does this mean exactly?
Most on-air statements during that time could not be classified as positive or negative, Lichter said. The study found, on average, less than two opinion statements per night on the candidates on all three networks combined -- not exactly embracing or pummeling Obama or McCain. But when a point of view did emerge, it tended to tilt against Obama.--> LOLOLOL GIVE ME A BREAK
-
How anybody can honestly argue that the media is not in love with Obama, is completely ridiculous. I think as we go, they might actually do their damm jobs and look at the guy critically, then u might get some real negatives.
-
How anybody can honestly argue that the media is not in love with Obama, is completely ridiculous. I think as we go, they might actually do their damm jobs and look at the guy critically, then u might get some real negatives.
Tell me about it. They media is infatuated with Obama.
The definition of "negative" press George Whorewell mentioned is funny. Media manipulation.
-
How anybody can honestly argue that the media is not in love with Obama, is completely ridiculous. I think as we go, they might actually do their damm jobs and look at the guy critically, then u might get some real negatives.
Dude, CNN had the Obama Presidential Seal appear in-between reporting stories, I doubt that qualifies them as being able to do a non biased job of reporting...ever.
-
U can't defend this...I'v heard reports that some in the media are finally sick of his arrogance. But until I see stories questioning his past relationships or his current polices or plans....i won't believ it. The one thing I find funny and possibly troubling is: The media treated this guy like a rock star, including the People/Entertainment weekly media crowd. We tend to get sick of hearing about "rock stars" after a few months. Maybe America is so saturated with Obama, that he can't really gain anymore ground on McCain. I mean is the war going to get better or worse before Nov, gas may go down...up could help either guy economy vs drilling, the economy isn't getting much better...what more does Obama need. Yet he still has between 1-6 points separating him. Hell McCain had a 4 point lead on one gallup poll last week.
-
Good call, bro. 67% of Americans agree with your statement.
LOL OMG plz post the lunny wackjob site you got this from so i can show you the flaws in this research!!!!!!!!! lol myuhahehae ::) :o ;D
-
Don't bother..its like bashing ur head against a brick wall.
-
How anybody can honestly argue that the media is not in love with Obama, is completely ridiculous. I think as we go, they might actually do their damm jobs and look at the guy critically, then u might get some real negatives.
After 8 years of bush, ...how can anyone NOT fall in love with someone poised to end that?
As Rodney Dangefield used to say... "When you've been hit by so many RIGHTS, ...you start begging for a LEFT!" :P.
-
Don't bother..its like bashing ur head against a brick wall.
You are the undisputed expert in that category, aren't you? :-*
-
Yeah.....because u libs can't understand normal thinking....
-
Decker pipe down. Or better yet go through your litany of obscure, meaningless studies that contradict reality and are devoid of any independent verification to prove another argument based on fiction.
I linked one study. That's a little more probative than your hysterical namecalling.
What is your mission today? Going to prove that transfats cause genital warts? Thunderstorms are a part of the republican conspiracy to get government contracts with companies that make umbrellas? Hows the reception on that aluminum foil hat by the way?
More hysterical name calling.
You're quite the flamer.
Here's something for you to consider...there is no liberal bias to the mainstream political news media.
Moving on there are two reasons why this poll is complete horseshit.
I was beginning to think that you are not worth my time and here you are...making a point. now life has meaning. ok.
1) This poll gives a vague and incomprehensible definition of what constitutes negative or positive. The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.The positive and negative remarks about each candidate are then totaled to calculate the percentages that cut for and against them.
- OK, so by that estimation, any assertion by a reporter that says something based on relevant data related to polling numbers is NEGATIVE? If someone said that McCain has a problem with minorities and people under 40 is that a NEGATIVE? I'd call it a fact, and so would anyone else with half a brain in their head.
Bush is a lawbreaking moron. That's a fact. Bush is not Bright. McCain is old and flip flops. Those are all facts. They are negative facts. Do you see that?
2) Can anyone honestly make the argument that this poll isn't an obvious ploy to deflect the obvious and deserved criticism of the press and its coverage of the election? Think about it this way. If, as the study claims, Obama is being portrayed "negatively" ( whatever that means) 72% of the time when he is mentioned, but is being covered three times more by the press, wouldn't that still mean he is getting more positive coverage than McCain who is being negatively portrayed 57% percent of the time? If your mentioned much, much, much less and given "negative coverage" 15% less than the other guy, the other guy still HAS AN OBVIOUS ADVANTAGE OVER YOU.
So to you, even bad press is good press? 72% of Obama's total coverage on CBS, NBC, & ABC which is 15% higher than McCain's ratio and you spin this to mean that b/c Obama is getting more coverage, he's still coming out ahead. His coverage is much more negative than positive and that is much worse than the ratio of McCain's.
You're engaging in paranoid talk. The reason is obvious. Obama is new to the scene and is drawing record crowds where ever he goes.
McCain is yesterday's news. He's been a media darling for about 30 years or so and now Obama is making his own splash. McCain had his moments when he ran for president 10 times before.
He's old news. What do you think that he gets more interesting with age?
I just don't see your problem as valid.
Visual images and other more subjective cues are not assessed. But the tracking applies a measure of analytical rigor to a field rife with seat-of-the-pants fulminations.
What the fuck does this mean exactly?
Is a picture of McCain negative or positve? It's neither unless the picture itself carries a connotative clue or the user has some prejudiced view of the candidate. Why's that so difficult to understand?
Most on-air statements during that time could not be classified as positive or negative, Lichter said. The study found, on average, less than two opinion statements per night on the candidates on all three networks combined -- not exactly embracing or pummeling Obama or McCain. But when a point of view did emerge, it tended to tilt against Obama.--> LOLOLOL GIVE ME A BREAK
Yeah, I'll accept your anecdotal evidence over a methodical study.
I think that's hilarious.
-
Ancedotal evidence? I quoted the article word for word. If your too braindead to comprehend the obvious, then there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. The study is flawed, vague and contradictory in its reasoning. Nothing I wrote is over the top or difficult to understand, its common sense dude.
-
...there is no liberal bias to the mainstream political news media.
yeah ok ::)
-
Sigh... Decker there is an obvious liberal bias in the media. There has been for several years and it exists on both network and cable television. Closing your eyes to the facts wont make reality go away. There are numerous instances spanning the last 20 years which I could type and link until my fingers fell off . I wont post any silly hyperlinks or waste my time re-writing them, instead i'll point you in the right direction. Start by reading the book "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg.
Anyway, you expect to be taken seriously when you respond to an obvious problem I pointed out about the study with an emotional outburst fueled by typical and predictable liberal nimrodery--> - OK, so by that estimation, any assertion by a reporter that says something based on relevant data related to polling numbers is NEGATIVE? If someone said that McCain has a problem with minorities and people under 40 is that a NEGATIVE? I'd call it a fact, and so would anyone else with half a brain in their head.
Bush is a lawbreaking moron. That's a fact. Bush is not Bright. McCain is old and flip flops. Those are all facts. They are negative facts. Do you see that?
Great point jackass, that doesnt have anything to do with what I pointed out.
-Ok your next response is nothing short of confusing. John McCain is a media darling and has been for thirty years? lolol, are you basing this on another Alien/ Scientologist/ Move on.org collaboration study? Do you have any concrete evidence to back this up besides your baseless opinion?
- Secondly, the point I am making is simple mathmatics. The study pointed out that Obama is roughly recieving about 2.5- 3 times the coverage McCain is. So, lets say Obama gets 180 minutes and McCain gets 60 to make the numbers easy to calculate. If McCain gets negative coverage 57% of 60 minutes that comes out to just over 34 minutes of negative coverage and 26 minutes of positive coverage. If Obama gets negative coverage 72% of the time over 180 minutes, that comes out to roughly 130 negative minutes and 50 positive minutes. Which number is greater 50 or 26?
Quote
2) Can anyone honestly make the argument that this poll isn't an obvious ploy to deflect the obvious and deserved criticism of the press and its coverage of the election? Think about it this way. If, as the study claims, Obama is being portrayed "negatively" ( whatever that means) 72% of the time when he is mentioned, but is being covered three times more by the press, wouldn't that still mean he is getting more positive coverage than McCain who is being negatively portrayed 57% percent of the time? If your mentioned much, much, much less and given "negative coverage" 15% less than the other guy, the other guy still HAS AN OBVIOUS ADVANTAGE OVER YOU.
So to you, even bad press is good press? 72% of Obama's total coverage on CBS, NBC, & ABC which is 15% higher than McCain's ratio and you spin this to mean that b/c Obama is getting more coverage, he's still coming out ahead. His coverage is much more negative than positive and that is much worse than the ratio of McCain's.
You're engaging in paranoid talk. The reason is obvious. Obama is new to the scene and is drawing record crowds where ever he goes.
McCain is yesterday's news. He's been a media darling for about 30 years or so and now Obama is making his own splash. McCain had his moments when he ran for president 10 times before.
He's old news. What do you think that he gets more interesting with age?
I just don't see your problem as valid.
- Ok, my main reason for quoting this isn't about pictures, but pictures are a significant part of television broadcast are they not? So the picture portion of the television broadcast- ( Showing Obama playing basketball, hi- fiving people and being cheered on in Europe Versus McCain standing by himself on a platform with no one around him or doing a town hall meeting with senior citizens) isn't scored as positive or negative because its subjective? Give me a fucking break.
- Secondly, the main reason I quoted this is to point out that the second sentence is a bunch of subjective mumbo jumbo with absolutely no definable meaning- Analytical rigor is just a fancy way of saying the data was analyzed without saying how it was analyzed. A field rife with seat-of the paints fulminations? Tell you what Decker. Figure out what that means and I wont post on getbig for a month. How does that sound? Quote
Visual images and other more subjective cues are not assessed. But the tracking applies a measure of analytical rigor to a field rife with seat-of-the-pants fulminations.
What the fuck does this mean exactly?
Is a picture of McCain negative or positve? It's neither unless the picture itself carries a connotative clue or the user has some prejudiced view of the candidate. Why's that so difficult to understand?
- Lastly, this paragraph is yet another example of how vague and incomprehensible the study is. Most on-air statements could not be classified as positive or negative... But Obama is negatively portrayed 72% of the time? Even you can't be that gullible.
Quote
Most on-air statements during that time could not be classified as positive or negative, Lichter said. The study found, on average, less than two opinion statements per night on the candidates on all three networks combined -- not exactly embracing or pummeling Obama or McCain. But when a point of view did emerge, it tended to tilt against Obama.--> LOLOLOL GIVE ME A BREAK
Yeah, I'll accept your anecdotal evidence over a methodical study.
I think that's hilarious.
-
How anybody can honestly argue that the media is not in love with Obama, is completely ridiculous.
They media is infatuated with Obama.
Gentlemen, you remind me of the CTers who believe "the government" is behind events.
Tell us, please, is FOX news included in "the media"?
-
Ancedotal evidence? I quoted the article word for word. If your too braindead to comprehend the obvious, then there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. The study is flawed, vague and contradictory in its reasoning. Nothing I wrote is over the top or difficult to understand, its common sense dude.
I hate arguing with myself.
Your contention is that Obama is getting the lion's share of good reporting...well, gosh darn it, just b/c he is...why you can see it with your own 2 eyes.
That's anecdotal evidence.
Your conclusions about the study are incorrect.
-
yeah ok ::)
The concentration of media ownership is in corporate hands--like GE and DIsney and 4 or 5 others.
Those are conservative companies. Hell GE is a very large industrial complex corporation.
Any contention that the media is liberal flies in the face of free market corporate governance. By that, I mean the inmates (news reporters) are running the asylum (news business) by running liberally biased stories.
Corporate executives do not let the peons run the business.
What about the NY Times? Surely I can't claim that that paper is not liberal? Sure I can. Which paper pushed hardest for the Iraq war? Which paper was a conduit for the Whitehouse to spread pro-war disinformation?
-
Sigh... Decker there is an obvious liberal bias in the media. There has been for several years and it exists on both network and cable television. Closing your eyes to the facts wont make reality go away. There are numerous instances spanning the last 20 years which I could type and link until my fingers fell off . I wont post any silly hyperlinks or waste my time re-writing them, instead i'll point you in the right direction. Start by reading the book "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg.
Yeah, I'll just take your word for it that the media is biased.
Goldberg's book is worthless horseshit...the rantings of a soured news employee. He uses the timeworn rightwing method of out-of-context quotes and outright whining.
It's a useless read. Sour grapes from a disingenuous old man....sort of like McCain.
Anyway, you expect to be taken seriously when you respond to an obvious problem I pointed out about the study with an emotional outburst fueled by typical and predictable liberal nimrodery--> - OK, so by that estimation, any assertion by a reporter that says something based on relevant data related to polling numbers is NEGATIVE? If someone said that McCain has a problem with minorities and people under 40 is that a NEGATIVE? I'd call it a fact, and so would anyone else with half a brain in their head.
This point of yours is still an incomplete thought.
Great point jackass, that doesnt have anything to do with what I pointed out.
Can't you discuss something like a man?
Or do you feel that you have to pout and call names? I guess you do. You're doing it.
The spineless, gutless liberals really run the media, hollywood and higher education and the poor innocent rightwingers are at their terrible mercies. That's funny.
Archie Bunker probably held the same views you do.
-Ok your next response is nothing short of confusing. John McCain is a media darling and has been for thirty years? lolol, are you basing this on another Alien/ Scientologist/ Move on.org collaboration study? Do you have any concrete evidence to back this up besides your baseless opinion?
I'll do something you don't: I'll back up my statements. Here's something from the very credible Townhall web site: McCain: Again, A Media Darling
http://townhall.com/Columnists/BrentBozellIII/2008/01/23/mccain_again,_a_media_darling
The Straight Talk Express...Maverick McCain... Straight Talk...Straight Shooter...all those are media gospel and must be mentioned when McCain is talked about. It's all bullshit, but it's always included.
You have to remember, Bush trashed McCain badly when he ran for president. It doesn't take much effort to reprint those stories from the pro-Bush/anti-McCain liberal media.
- Secondly, the point I am making is simple mathmatics. The study pointed out that Obama is roughly recieving about 2.5- 3 times the coverage McCain is. So, lets say Obama gets 180 minutes and McCain gets 60 to make the numbers easy to calculate. If McCain gets negative coverage 57% of 60 minutes that comes out to just over 34 minutes of negative coverage and 26 minutes of positive coverage. If Obama gets negative coverage 72% of the time over 180 minutes, that comes out to roughly 130 negative minutes and 50 positive minutes. Which number is greater 50 or 26? [/b]
Who cares? Compare ratios otherwise you're wasting my time.
Can anyone honestly make the argument that this poll isn't an obvious ploy to deflect the obvious and deserved criticism of the press and its coverage of the election? Think about it this way. If, as the study claims, Obama is being portrayed "negatively" ( whatever that means) 72% of the time when he is mentioned, but is being covered three times more by the press, wouldn't that still mean he is getting more positive coverage than McCain who is being negatively portrayed 57% percent of the time? If your mentioned much, much, much less and given "negative coverage" 15% less than the other guy, the other guy still HAS AN OBVIOUS ADVANTAGE OVER YOU.
More of the same. Obvious...no...Obama is getting by far the most negative coverage. Nice try though.
Ok, my main reason for quoting this isn't about pictures, but pictures are a significant part of television broadcast are they not? So the picture portion of the television broadcast- ( Showing Obama playing basketball, hi- fiving people and being cheered on in Europe Versus McCain standing by himself on a platform with no one around him or doing a town hall meeting with senior citizens) isn't scored as positive or negative because its subjective? Give me a fucking break.
The standard was applied equally in the study. I don't see the problem.
- Secondly, the main reason I quoted this is to point out that the second sentence is a bunch of subjective mumbo jumbo with absolutely no definable meaning- Analytical rigor is just a fancy way of saying the data was analyzed without saying how it was analyzed. A field rife with seat-of the paints fulminations? Tell you what Decker. Figure out what that means and I wont post on getbig for a month. How does that sound? [/b]
It sounds stupid. The reason I debate is to get a better understanding of how things work. If you really want to address the topic of whether there's a liberal slant to the mainstream media, we can look at the consolidation of media ownership, we can look at the number of right pundits v. left & centrist pundits, how the media covered the last presidential election (favored Bush over Kerry), the prevalence of rightwing thinktanks in mainstream media (heritage and AEI), and the general pro-corporate slant of mainstream media (gotta reflect the interests of the owners).
When's the last time you saw Gore Vidal or Noam Chomsky on Meet the Press? Never.
Quote
Visual images and other more subjective cues are not assessed. But the tracking applies a measure of analytical rigor to a field rife with seat-of-the-pants fulminations. What the fuck does this mean exactly?
Rough translation: B/c many media figures talk out of there asses, the Center's codes for neg/pos statements provide the basis for a reasonable analysis.
- Lastly, this paragraph is yet another example of how vague and incomprehensible the study is. Most on-air statements could not be classified as positive or negative... But Obama is negatively portrayed 72% of the time? Even you can't be that gullible.
I'm sorry that I have to waste people's time with stuff like this. Of the statements of reporting subject to the Center's coding, 72% of those statements are negative. Not all the statements reported...just the ones subject to the coding analysis under the methodology used by the Center.
Do you see that now?
-
Decker, once again I see this is becoming an exercise in futility. You pick and choose what to respond to, ignore obvious points, ignore the short comings of your own arguments when it suits you and back up your opinions with questionable/ inconclusive/ irrelevant hyperlinks. Im tired of trying to change your mind when its plain as day your too brainwashed to see any position but your own.
The only point worth responding to is
The spineless, gutless liberals really run the media, hollywood and higher education and the poor innocent rightwingers are at their terrible mercies. That's funny.
Archie Bunker probably held the same views you do.
Have you read "The Shadow University" ?
Theres another book for you demonstrating the overwhelming and indisputable pro leftist bias on America's college campuses. The book was actually written by two Harvard liberals. If you haven't read it, you really should.
Also, I doubt Archie Bunker gave much thought to any of the aforementioned. Your not American are you Decker?
-
Have you read "The Shadow University" ?
Theres another book for you demonstrating the overwhelming and indisputable pro leftist bias on America's college campuses. The book was actually written by two Harvard liberals. If you haven't read it, you really should.
Just a cursory glance can provide us with the obvious reason for this. Liberals use their brains more.
Republicans scratch, burp, grunt, and pass gas, ...but overall when it comes to actually using their brains...
They can't hold a candle to Liberals. That's why Republicans are all so violent, always wanting to wage war.
They can't reason their way over an obstacle, ...so instead they want to smash it. Very primitive folks. :D
-
Bias can easily showed in the amount of money donated
100-1 for Obama.
No one donates to someone you think will lose and you are going to backup your investment.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569
-
They can't reason their way over an obstacle, ...so instead they want to smash it. Very primitive folks. :D
As opposed to liberals who want to look smart by putting on white lab coats and selling pills that save on gas. Energy crisis solved everyone. Very sneaky folks.
-
As opposed to liberals who want to look smart by putting on white lab coats and selling pills that save on gas. Energy crisis solved everyone. Very sneaky folks.
You ought to change your screen name from youandme to one-note-on-the-bazooka.
And it's not just me who's saying it... drivers, companies, laboratories and countries around the world who have actually tested this product are saying it to... from Australia, Belgium, Phillipines, China, Mexico, USA etc.,
ps: this bod is too hot to be hidden away behind a white lab coat.
-
So what does that mean, did the FTC drop it's investigation and let the company from Dallas Texas post bail?
-
So what does that mean, did the FTC drop it's investigation and let the company from Dallas Texas post bail?
First of all, my company is not from Dallas Texas.
The company at the heart of creating a negative impression of fuel pills in North America, of which you speak was indicted by the texas attorney general, convicted of fraud, shut down, and ordered to pay millions in restitution. They launched their company subsequent to our launch, and have been poisoning the North American market ever since. As a result of their bogus claims, and their selling of an ineffective and toxic product, people have the mistaken impression that all fuel pills are the same. Not true. That would be like convicting mcDonald's because Jack-In-The-box sold burgers tainted with salmonella, ...or because XYZ sold ground up cardboard and dog cadavers claiming it to be 100% BEEF.
For clarification, please listen to this mp3 recording (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/ffi/bioconfusion.htm)
Anybody wanting to hear the results that actual users of our products are getting can feel free to
dial: (605) 475-8500 enter conference room 5868476 at 10pm Eastern time tonight
-
First of all, my company is not from Dallas Texas.
The company at the heart of creating a negativve impression of fuel pills in North America, of which you speak was indicted by the texas attorney general, convicted of fraud, shut down, and ordered to pay millions in restitution. They launched their company subsequent to our launch, and have been poisoning the North American market ever since. As a result of their bogus claims, and their selling of an ineffective and toxic product, people have the mistaken impression that all fuel pills are the same. Not true. That would be like convicting mcDonald's because Jack-In-The-box sold burgers tainted with salmonella, ...or because XYZ sold ground up cardboard and dog cadavers claiming it to be 100%.
For clarification, please listen to this mp3 recording (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/ffi/bioconfusion.htm)
Anybody wanting to hear the results that actual users of our products are getting can feel free to
dial: (605) 475-8500 enter conference room 5868476 at 10pm Eastern time tonight
Why are you allowed to advertise that bullshit on here?
You tried to peddle a herbal cure for SARS with a CRIMINAL. You're a scumbag hack. A piece of shit scraping by in life by duping others into buying shitty products.
-
Why are you allowed to advertise that bullshit on here?
You tried to peddle a herbal cure for SARS with a CRIMINAL. You're a scumbag hack. A piece of shit scraping by in life by duping others into buying shitty products.
I'm not peddling a damn thing. A slanderous lie was introduced and I am defending myself.
If you're of the opinion that people should not be defending themselves, perhaps you should also object to baseless warrantless attacks on them in the first place.
I never peddled a cure for SARS with a criminal or otherwise.
What I marketed 5 years ago was a herbal supplement proven to strengthen the immune system.
-
or because XYZ sold ground up cardboard and dog cadavers claiming it to be 100% BEEF.
I would prefer clarification on the above XYZ mentioned company
-
Decker, once again I see this is becoming an exercise in futility. You pick and choose what to respond to, ignore obvious points, ignore the short comings of your own arguments when it suits you and back up your opinions with questionable/ inconclusive/ irrelevant hyperlinks. Im tired of trying to change your mind when its plain as day your too brainwashed to see any position but your own.
More unfounded conclusions...i.e., unsupported or unsubstantiated statements of assessment.
The only point worth responding to is
The spineless, gutless liberals really run the media, hollywood and higher education and the poor innocent rightwingers are at their terrible mercies. That's funny.
Archie Bunker probably held the same views you do.
Have you read "The Shadow University" ?
Theres another book for you demonstrating the overwhelming and indisputable pro leftist bias on America's college campuses. The book was actually written by two Harvard liberals. If you haven't read it, you really should.
Also, I doubt Archie Bunker gave much thought to any of the aforementioned.
Have you read "What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias in the News"?
Have you scene the study done by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting which found a 7:1 dominance of rightwing think tank references over progressive think tank references in the liberal media?
We could delve into the unfair biased coverage Bush received in both presidential elections.
We could just add up the rightwing pundits on TV and in the papers and compare the number to the centrists and the leftists.
I think the reason you believe the media is liberal b/c any variance from the republican message of the day or orthodoxy is automatically branded "liberal" in your universe. The concept of centrism does not exist for the american right wing.
Sam Donaldson is not a liberal. Morton Kondrake is not a liberal. Mark Shields is not a liberal. Michael Kinsley is not a liberal.
They are all centrists.
Your [sic] not American are you ...?
What a coincidence. I was just about to ask you the same question.
-
You ought to change your screen name from youandme to one-note-on-the-bazooka.
And it's not just me who's saying it... drivers, companies, laboratories and countries around the world who have actually tested this product are saying it to... from Australia, Belgium, Phillipines, China, Mexico, USA etc.,
ps: this bod is too hot to be hidden away behind a white lab coat.
Yeah, the right smashes it, while the left collectively lubes up their anus and lets the obstacle pound them into submission.
-
I'm peddling snake oil! GUARANTEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDD to get you 500 miles* to the gallon!!!!!!! All it takes is 5 easy payments of $499.99!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SNAKE OIL(tm)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get bit by the snake!!!!!!!!
(http://www.electronichouse.com/images/uploads/snake_oil_cables.jpg)
* Refuted by no one important. Studies carried out by autistic four year olds support said claims. Not responsible for blown engines. Business partner and CEO is a criminal.
-
lmao
not responsible for blow engines