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_darlingThe 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?
