Media is in the tank for Barry

[airdvr 210]

http://www.journalism.org/files/WINNING%20THE%20MEDIA%20CAMPAIGN%20FINAL.pdf

The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended.

Thomas Jefferson - “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,026]

Here.

...

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

[airdvr 210]

So you agree then?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SpeedRacer 1]

Who the hell is Barry?

His name is Barack. Why call him Barry as if that's funny or an insult or something?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rasmack 0]

Quote

Here.

Hey, thanks. I always wanted that one in a proper resolution.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[airdvr 210]

http://barryobama.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/from-barry-to-barack/

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[idrankwhat 0]

What kind of campaign has McCain run?

And from your link:
Much of the increased attention for McCain derived from actions by the senator himself, actions that, in the end, generated mostly negative assessments

So how would the "airdver press" write up a story about a mean, angry, old, name-calling man whose rally crowd appears more like a lynch mob?

[ahheck 0]

Quote

Who the hell is Barry?

His name is Barack. Why call him Barry as if that's funny or an insult or something?

Something like Shrub or Monkey?

[Trent 0]

If you don't want to read a PDF...
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

Now let's all discredit the study QUICK!! Can't have this!!

Oh, hello again!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Who the hell is Barry? His name is Barack. Why call him Barry as if that's funny or an insult or something?

Because liberals get very upset if we use his real name.

If we use his middle name "Hussein" they accuse us of suggesting that he's a tyrannical dictator, like Sadam Hussein.

If we use his last name "Obama", they accuse us of trying to point out that he's partially of African descent, and say we're racist.

If we use his first name "Barack", they accuse us of trying to imply that he's Muslim, and say we're lying about his religion.

So "Barry" works for me. That's as American as apple pie.

But now you're bitching because we're not using those other negatively suggestive names...

You just can't win with liberals.

[TheAnvil 0]

No shit. Anybody who follows politics should have predicted this. Their leftist tilt has been more despicable than ever during this election cycle.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[wmw999 2,439]

The article seems to point mainly at MSNBC as driving this, and indicates that other networks don't follow its lead. And, in the chart, MSNBC does seem pretty skewed. I don't look at MSNBC, so I can't really compare it to any other sources myself.

One thing to consider is the definition of negative coverage, just as the definition of negative campaigning seems to morph. If someone has more negative statements in their campaign rhetoric, is it negative coverage to point it out?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[MegaGoliath11 0]

dude get over it, nobody cares if you call him Barack Obama, or Obama, or Barack. you are just making the worst straw man ever.

[Trent 0]

Well, MSNBC is the very obvious worst offender. If you page throught the links on the right there, you'll see where they get into other networks, which, like you said, aren't as bad as MSNBC (but who could be?). It also shows some comparisons to media as a whole which is very very skewed to Obama's side as well.

Here is there methodology if you want to see how they came to their conclusions. http://www.journalism.org/node/13441

What I don't know is if research from this organization is normally respected or is it viewed as right wing? I know just based on this study people will say it is, but has that always been its reputation?

Oh, hello again!

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

If we use his last name "Obama", they accuse us of trying to point out that he's partially of African descent, and say we're racist.

Who's done that?

Quote

If we use his first name "Barack", they accuse us of trying to imply that he's Muslim, and say we're lying about his religion.

Who's done that? (Is Barack a Muslim name?)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Well, MSNBC is the very obvious worst offender. If you page throught the links on the right there, you'll see where they get into other networks, which, like you said, aren't as bad as MSNBC (but who could be?). It also shows some comparisons to media as a whole which is very very skewed to Obama's side as well.

Here is there methodology if you want to see how they came to their conclusions. http://www.journalism.org/node/13441

What I don't know is if research from this organization is normally respected or is it viewed as right wing? I know just based on this study people will say it is, but has that always been its reputation?

The flaw in your analysis of their data is that you assume each candidate is equally worthy of positive (or negative) coverage. They are not.

(in case this is too "academic" for anyone, imagine instead coverage of Mother Teresa vs Josef Stalin. If each received the same level of favorable coverage, would you assume the media were unbiased?)

...

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

[Trent 0]

Quote

The flaw in your analysis of their data is that you assume each candidate is equally worthy of positive (or negative) coverage. They are not.

So YOU say.

Oh, hello again!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

The flaw in your analysis of their data is that you assume each candidate is equally worthy of positive (or negative) coverage. They are not.

So YOU say.

OOoo, good riposte!

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

The flaw in your analysis of their data is that you assume each candidate is equally worthy of positive (or negative) coverage. They are not.

So YOU say.

Me, AND FOXNew
s, according to the study you cited.

...

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

[Trent 0]

Very witty! Congratulations!

Oh, hello again!

[Trent 0]

So FOXNew
s is not in the tank for McCain then?

How would you quantify someone's worthiness of negative coverage then? Let me guess...

Oh, hello again!

[idrankwhat 0]

Again, I have to ask, how do you write a positive article about the McCain campaign? His chosen theme is negativity. Simply covering a speech will come off as negative.

No, I'm not calling him a Nazi but this conversation reminds me of this t-shirt

[Trent 0]

Quote

Again, I have to ask, how do you write a positive article about the McCain campaign?

How do you write one about the Obama campaign? Just say hope and change and ridicule any criticism, even if it's legit?

Quote

His chosen theme is negativity. Simply covering a speech will come off as negative.

Wouldn't it come off as negative for the other side then? Unless the article or story was something along the lines of "McCain came off as a crotchety old man..." or something.

Look, McCain is not my favorite guy as a conservative, but to say that he's more deserving of negative criticism is silly and it's just an opinion.

Clearly many people just think the media is right for loving Obama. I guess this study doesn't mean anything in the case that people really think that the other side has no merits at all and deserves all the negative mentions. That's all opinion though and hardly portrays the media as honest and impartial.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,989]

>How do you write one about the Obama campaign?

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!"

And so the news organizations give people what they want - and they cover the negative stuff.

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.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

His chosen theme is negativity. Simply covering a speech will come off as negative.

Wouldn't it come off as negative for the other side then?

I don't see how it could. Negativity is McCain's primary strategy. Obama's been lauded, even by those on the right, because he hasn't taken the bait. (He may mock a McCain claim in rebuttal but I haven't heard him monger fear like his opponent) I'll admit that McCain's gotten better but I think that's only because the strategy backlashed.

Hey, now that I'm thinking about it, I have a good story for the McCain camp. Just look at how effective he is at creating jobs. Joe the plumber's now doing well enough to hire a publicist, strike a book deal and maybe even employ some studio musicians for an album!