Obama at Berlin

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I didn't find anything on comparison of ads, but I did find some stuff on comparison of media coverage:

Skimmed through the first one - point seems to be that when Obama goes to Iraq and Berlin he gets more attention than McCain does when he goes to a grocery store and a sausage restaurant.

Is this supposed to be some sort of surprise? Surely what Obama's been doing in the last week or so is really just more interesting? (and not just from a european's point of view)

Yeah, you skimmed - it points out that Obama got MUCH more coverage than a similar trip by McCain in March.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Germany and France both just elected leaders of thier countries that ran on a pro USA pro Bush platforms.

GW Bush approval ratings in both countries are around 13 or 14%. and have been at this level for a couple of years.

And the outcome of the 2004 election did blow a lot of people's minds in the old continent - although many did not put it as bluntly as the Daily Mirror cover there was fair amount of puzzlement about the sanity of US voters.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Yeah, you skimmed - it points out that Obama got MUCH more coverage than a similar trip by McCain in March.

I think Tyndall points out a relevant concept in the first article:
"ANDREW TYNDALL: No, that's not their first and foremost obligation. The first and foremost obligation of a journalist is to reflect reality. And if the reality is that Obama is speaking to 200,000 people in Germany and John McCain is in an aisle in the supermarket, the 200,000 people are more newsworthy than Obama.

And you wouldn't be reflecting reality accurately if you gave those two events equal weight. You'd lose all credibility in the eyes of your audience, because you'd be saying this spectacular phenomenon that's happening in Berlin is no more or less important than a photo-op in a supermarket."

We all know that the press is most interested in selling advertising so following the bigger story makes sense. McCain also is a known quantity who has always been treated well by the press corp because he's always made himself available. Unfortunately he's not doing anything interesting or new. And unfortunately for him, when he does get coverage it's because he's made a serious misstatement or a policy shift or it has to do with his struggle to shore up a conservative base that doesn't particularly like him.

As for Obama's trip to Europe, McCain pretty much challenged him to go over there. That obviously backfired as evidenced by the nature of McCain's last two ads. If he doesn't watch out he's going to start giving people the impression that he's desperate.
And I thought that Obama's response was rather poignant when he said:
""You know, I don't pay attention to John McCain's ads," Obama said. "Although I do notice that he doesn't seem to have anything to say very positive about himself. He seems to only be talking about me. You need to ask John McCain what he's for, not just what he's against."

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Wrapup: Dems in general and Obama in particular get more (and more positive) coverage in the news.

.

Mother Teresa gets more favorable press coverage than Stalin, too. Doesn't mean the media are biased.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Wrapup: Dems in general and Obama in particular get more (and more positive) coverage in the news.

.

Mother Teresa gets more favorable press coverage than Stalin, too. Doesn't mean the media are biased.

Except for those pesky quotes from the media themselves admitting they're biased, that is.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Except for those pesky quotes from the media themselves admitting they're biased, that is.

Surely you're not referring to your two quotes per year over a couple decades, some of which claim media bias collection are you? They were also laughable in the last discussion you tried using them in.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Except for those pesky quotes from the media themselves admitting they're biased, that is.

Surely you're not referring to your two quotes per year over a couple decades, some of which claim media bias collection are you? They were also laughable in the last discussion you tried using them in.

I think I'll take the ABC exec's word over yours, thanks for playing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Except for those pesky quotes from the media themselves admitting they're biased, that is.

Surely you're not referring to your two quotes per year over a couple decades, some of which claim media bias collection are you? They were also laughable in the last discussion you tried using them in.

I think I'll take the ABC exec's word over yours, thanks for playing.

And I'll take academic studies over the word of an ABC executive's word. The studies, however, don't support your assertion. (I'm assuming that you still claim that the bias is liberal.)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Except for those pesky quotes from the media themselves admitting they're biased, that is.

Surely you're not referring to your two quotes per year over a couple decades, some of which claim media bias collection are you? They were also laughable in the last discussion you tried using them in.

I think I'll take the ABC exec's word over yours, thanks for playing.

And I'll take academic studies over the word of an ABC executive's word. The studies, however, don't support your assertion. (I'm assuming that you still claim that the bias is liberal.)

Yes - and the two newer reports that I listed above support that - of course, if you're a liberal already.... "nothing to see here, move along".

The frog only notices the water is hot if he's put in AFTER it's heated up.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

The frog only notices the water is hot if he's put in AFTER it's heated up.

Does that explain why you're still in the Republican pot

J/K - I couldn't resist

Performance Designs Factory Team

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The frog only notices the water is hot if he's put in AFTER it's heated up.

Does that explain why you're still in the Republican pot

J/K - I couldn't resist

Actually, no... when I had first gotten out of HS, I thought the Dems had great ideas - then I grew up and realized there's a REAL world out there.

(I'm sure the operation that year to remove my head from my ass didn't have a THING to do with it)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

then I grew up and realized there's a REAL world out there.

Can't say I blame you, I have moments like that myself. I figure though, that resigning myself to that world (that I don't agree with), is analogous to me quitting.

Side note: I just took the political test to see where I lay these days. Seems like I'm stuck near the Dali-Lama HAHAHA

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[idrankwhat 0]

Ok, lets run with it and say that most reporters are "libs". I'm a "lib" but I would never run a story that was fictitious or deliberately misleading. And if I were an editor I would never allow a piece to run that was a partisan hack job. If I did then my paper/network would show a lack of journalistic integrity and lose credibility. IMO, that's the proper "lib" approach to journalism. So if I was a part of your poll, I'd be falling into the "lib" category but I wouldn't be tainting the news with my "bias".

Now with your examples you're pointing to a "liberal" media that runs more and positive stories about Obama than it does McCain and calling that evidence of a bias. And maybe you have a point. But when people point out the bias from the "new" media the bias is not nearly that subtle (a vast understatement) and it usually gets explained off as "oh, that's meant to be entertainment".

$0.02

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yes - and the two newer reports that I listed above support that - of course, if you're a liberal already.... "nothing to see here, move along".

The frog only notices the water is hot if he's put in AFTER it's heated up.

Oh, you mean the studies that found that the media was more interested in finding out whether the Democrats were going to field the first major party female presidential nominee or the first major party black presidential nominee. Yeah, I can see how you might think the race between Romney, Huckabee, and McCain was as news worthy.

Once again, your sources don't say what you think they say. If the Republicans aren't doing as much that's worthy of positive news coverage, they won't get as much positive news coverage. Likewise, if they do more to garner negative news coverage, they'll receive more. It's a faulty logic to assume that both parties are equally deserving of the same coverage.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Likewise, if they do more to garner negative news coverage, they'll receive more.

I don't dispute that - I *do* think it's wrong in cases where the party affiliation is in the first few sentences (if Republican), or buried at the end of the article if it's mentioned at all (if Democrat).

Quote

It's a faulty logic to assume that both parties are equally deserving of the same coverage.

Of course - I must have forgotten that Obama's trip to Iraq and Europe was *4 times more important* than McCain's trip to Iraq and Europe - silly me.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Seems like I'm stuck near the Dali-Lama HAHAHA

So...you've got one of those funny orange robes?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I *do* think it's wrong in cases where the party affiliation is in the first few sentences (if Republican), or buried at the end of the article if it's mentioned at all (if Democrat).

It depends on the context and relevance.

***Of course - I must have forgotten that Obama's trip to Iraq and Europe was *4 times more important* than McCain's trip to Iraq and Europe - silly me.

[mnealtx 0]

Context and relevance, my ass. Compare the stories about Sen. Stevens vs. Sen Jefferson in the news. They mention Stevens' Republican affiliation in the first couple sentences - in Jefferson's initial stories, it wasn't mentioned at all.

As for Obama vs. McCain - I forgot that it's common practice for all three of the network anchors to follow the candidates abroad on their trips. How could I have forgotten the sight of Kouric, Williams and Gibson, kevlar in hand, slavishly following McCain around the Middle East and Europe earlier this year and singing hosannas in his name? Maybe because it never happened?

They don't refute that Obama drawing a crowd in Berlin is more newsworthy than McCain stumping at a grocery store, and neither do I. They are saying (and I agree) that Obama is being reported on as the heir presumptive (so to speak). You can't run a successful campaign without news coverage, and boy, is he getting it (and in an overwhelmingly good light, as well).

Dude - you have Jon Stewart saying "Of course, after a quick meet-and-greet with King Abdullah, Obama was off to Israel, where he made a quick stop at the manger in Bethlehem where he was born". That *should* be a clue, right there.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Yeah, you skimmed - it points out that Obama got MUCH more coverage than a similar trip by McCain in March.

McCain went travelling while Obama and Hillary were still fighting tooth and nail in the Dem primary, and at about the same time as the Obama/Wright scandal broke out. That's big news to fight against for air time. What McCain campaign drama has Obama's trip had to contend with?

Also, were the two trips equal in what they achieved? CNN says Obama spoke to a crowd of 200,000 - what was McCain's biggest audience?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, you skimmed - it points out that Obama got MUCH more coverage than a similar trip by McCain in March.

McCain went travelling while Obama and Hillary were still fighting tooth and nail in the Dem primary, and at about the same time as the Obama/Wright scandal broke out. That's big news to fight against for air time. What McCain campaign drama has Obama's trip had to contend with?

Also, were the two trips equal in what they achieved? CNN says Obama spoke to a crowd of 200,000 - what was McCain's biggest audience?

Try again, jakee - the comparison is between Oboma's trip to the M.E / Europe and McCains trip to the M.E. / Europe.

Reporting by big media has CREATED an unequal playing field - unless you can show me where the main anchors of the big 3 agencies accompanied McCain on his trip...or refered to him as a "super star" or other accolades, maybe a 'tingle up the leg" or something.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,621]

It's quite clear that Obama simply deserves more coverage from unbiased media.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Try again, jakee - the comparison is between Oboma's trip to the M.E / Europe and McCains trip to the M.E. / Europe.

What the hell do you think I just did?

Quote

unless you can show me where the main anchors of the big 3 agencies accompanied McCain on his trip

When McCain went abroad the news channels still had an incredibly close fought primary campaign to report on at home, when Obama went abroad they had... what?

You may be right that the media react differently to McCain than to Obama, but you simply cannot ignore the context when making accusations of bias. Trying to contend that Obama and McCain's trips were exactly as newsworthy as each other without considering a) what happened during the respective trips and b) what related news was happening at the same time is just dumb.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It's quite clear that Obama simply deserves more coverage from unbiased media.

Too bad there's not any - unbiased media, that is.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Try again, jakee - the comparison is between Oboma's trip to the M.E / Europe and McCains trip to the M.E. / Europe.

What the hell do you think I just did?

No. Compare the two trips to the Middle East to each other, not to what the other candidate was doing at the time.

Quote

Quote

unless you can show me where the main anchors of the big 3 agencies accompanied McCain on his trip

When McCain went abroad the news channels still had an incredibly close fought primary campaign to report on at home, when Obama went abroad they had... what?

That would be when Chris Matthews was getting the 'tingle up his leg' and the news anchors were referring to Obama as a 'superstar', yes? Thanks for proving my point.

Quote

You may be right that the media react differently to McCain than to Obama, but you simply cannot ignore the context when making accusations of bias. Trying to contend that Obama and McCain's trips were exactly as newsworthy as each other without considering a) what happened during the respective trips and b) what related news was happening at the same time is just dumb.

Gee, I suppose you're right - after all, with casualty counts dropping steadily in Iraq, the press didn't really have anything to report that they could use to beat the administration with, so I guess that reporting on the Democratic candidate's campaigns WAS much more important than reporting on the Republican candidate's campaign.

Oh, wait... that's SOP. Sorry, sorry... carry on!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Try again, jakee - the comparison is between Oboma's trip to the M.E / Europe and McCains trip to the M.E. / Europe.

What the hell do you think I just did?

No. Compare the two trips to the Middle East to each other, not to what the other candidate was doing at the time.

you can't do this. This isn't a lab experiment where you can control for extraneous variables. In the real world, the media sells itself. Since McCain's campaign was locked up early, stories about him became pretty unnewsworthy fast, while the Bro and Ho campaign stayed tight to the end. This is one downside to the GOP's winner take all allocation model. (the upshot is they end the infighting early).

Media upstaging as a planned event has long been part of the game as well. Why do you think McCain went to German restaurants while Obama was in ACTUAL Germany? It was a half assed attempt to ride the coattails. Didn't work nearly so well as hoped, either.

Getting coverage is part of the campaign and I don't think McCain's people have a clue.