0
airdvr

Media is in the tank for Barry

Recommended Posts

Quote

Here's an example. You write one reviewing his 30 minute infomercial. And whether you support the material in it or not, there was no negative campaigning.

Compare that to trying to write an article about a McCain speech not mentioning negative campaigning. If you did so, conservatives everywhere would be up in arms, complaining that "there was NO MENTION in that article about the latest AYERS scandal, or AYERS stuff, or anything about AYERS! Bias! Favoritism! The media doesn't want you to know the Truth about AYERS, Obama and AYERS!"



That doesn't appear to be how they decide what is negative and what is positive.

From their methodology...
Tone Variable
The tone variable measures whether a story’s tone is constructed in a way, via use of quotes, assertions, or innuendo, which results in positive, neutral, or negative coverage for the primary figure as it relates to the topic of the story. While reading or listening to a story, coders tallied up all the comments that have either a negative or positive tone to the reporting. Direct and indirect quotes were counted along with assertions made by journalists themselves.

In order for a story to be coded as either “positive” or “negative,” it must have either 1.5 times the amount of positive comments to negative comments, or 1.5 times the amount of negative comments to positive comments (with an exception for 2 to 3, which is coded as “neutral”). If the headline or lead has a positive or negative tone, it was counted twice into the total value. Also counted twice for tone were the first three paragraphs or first four sentences, whichever came first.

Any story where the ratio of positive to negative comments was less than 1.5 to 1 was considered a “neutral” story.


Apparently the news media only gives the people what they want (negative stuff, as you say) when it's against McCain.

Quote

The anti-Obama smears are getting so bad that even FOX News commentators are calling McCain supporters a little nuts. And when FOX News starts saying something's over the line - you know you have a problem.



The problem is, some things that are legit (opinion of course) are just being written off as "smears" by Obama supporters. These "smears" would be of interest to the government if you were applying for a job with them, why shouldn't these things be called into question?

Now some of it's trash, of course. But so are all the nonsense front page stories of Palin's wardrobe and makeup...
Oh, hello again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The problem is, some things that are legit (opinion of course) are just being
>written off as "smears" by Obama supporters.

I agree, and that's unfortunate. Like the "carved a B into her face" hoax, such extremists marginalize the people with a legitimate issue they want to discuss.

> These "smears" would be of interest to the government if you were applying for a
>job with them, why shouldn't these things be called into question?

?? If someone accuses McCain of being an illegal alien since he was not born in the US, does that mean that the media has a responsibility to provide coverage on the issue? (And, since you feel that balance is important, surely they would have to give 50% of that time to an expert who can prove he is an illegal alien.)

The news media filters and rejects the more absurd claims as a matter of course. Sometimes they do it explicitly and publicly (as with the FOX reporter discussing Obama's desire to destroy Israel) but more often manifests itself as a simple "that's bullshit, we're not covering that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



The problem is, some things that are legit (opinion of course) are just being written off as "smears" by Obama supporters. These "smears" would be of interest to the government if you were applying for a job with them, why shouldn't these things be called into question?

Now some of it's trash, of course. But so are all the nonsense front page stories of Palin's wardrobe and makeup...



Just as legit concerns over McCain and G. Gordon Liddy and McCain and Iran Contra are written off by McCain supporters.

For the comparative trash count:
Trash about Obama
Trash about McCain
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I agree, and that's unfortunate. Like the "carved a B into her face" hoax, such extremists marginalize the people with a legitimate issue they want to discuss.



Yep.

Quote

?? If someone accuses McCain of being an illegal alien since he was not born in the US, does that mean that the media has a responsibility to provide coverage on the issue? (And, since you feel that balance is important, surely they would have to give 50% of that time to an expert who can prove he is an illegal alien.)



That one seems to be stretching, I agree. But there are legitimate issues, associations, donations, etc that seem to get blown off as "just smears" when they are things that really would keep you out of a government job any other time.

Quote

The news media filters and rejects the more absurd claims as a matter of course. Sometimes they do it explicitly and publicly (as with the FOX reporter discussing Obama's desire to destroy Israel) but more often manifests itself as a simple "that's bullshit, we're not covering that."



Of course, the BS filter is thicker for one side than the other seemingly. Especially in the case of the wardrobe and makeup BS that made front pages.

What did you think about the methodology statement about the study? Does that change how you see it?
Oh, hello again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just as legit concerns over McCain and G. Gordon Liddy and McCain and Iran Contra are written off by McCain supporters.



By all means, that stuff should be looked into and given attention as well!

How much of the "trash" is handled by the major media? How much of that "trash" is put out by the McCain campaign? How much of that "trash" is true or partly true? 14 of the 45 trashes have some element of truth to them, according to the totally impartial snopes.

Oh, and some of the "trash" was stuff that could have been seen as a positive for Obama... you know, little stuff like he has a healing touch. Lol.
Oh, hello again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Just as legit concerns over McCain and G. Gordon Liddy and McCain and Iran Contra are written off by McCain supporters.



By all means, that stuff should be looked into and given attention as well!

How much of the "trash" is handled by the major media? How much of that "trash" is put out by the McCain campaign? How much of that "trash" is true or partly true? 14 of the 45 trashes have some element of truth to them, according to the totally impartial snopes.

Oh, and some of the "trash" was stuff that could have been seen as a positive for Obama... you know, little stuff like he has a healing touch. Lol.



Same is true of McCain - so just count the smear trash about each and discount the rest.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>But there are legitimate issues, associations, donations, etc that seem to get
>blown off as "just smears" when they are things that really would keep you out of a
>government job any other time.

Depends on the issue. Previous felonies? Absolutely. Previous casual acquaintances? Nope. I mean, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein is not enough to keep you from being Secretary of State, and giving your support to known felons is not enough to keep you from being elected senator. Claiming that being on the same educational board as someone is worse than that is absurd.

>Especially in the case of the wardrobe and makeup BS that made front pages.

The Ayers and the "Obama isn't a citizen" BS made it to the front pages as well. That's the media echo chamber in operation. Not reporting on the news, but reporting on what other people are reporting is the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, one man's smear is another man's legitimate concern.



Legitimate concerns:

McCain and G. Gordon Liddy
McCain and Iran Contra
McCain and Lincoln Savings and Loan

But there's no big Dem smear machine pushing these issues every day.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0