Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 72

Thread: balanced media coverage?

  1. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    602

    Post Re: balanced media coverage?

    My question back is do you think McCain deserves that much positive coverage over the last two months? His campaign has come apart at the rails. It's kind of like sharks with blood in the water. As I said I would be more interested in seeing the data up until one week after the convention....That data was not collected in a vacuum....it's completely dependent upon the candidate's actions. One can't just put it up and say...look this is media bias without doing some amount of analysis on it. It's not scientific.

  2. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    747

    Re: balanced media coverage?

    MCain has not been negative as the liberals say...sure both sides have takn jabs and some of it is not tremendously kind, but that is politics...there have certainly been many more PERSONAL attacks on Palin than anyone, but some of it is valid...for both Palin and Obama..like experience..both SHOULD be questioned. Like associations..from BOTH...records etc. They should all be open. They are NOT and the media has given Obama a pass. Where it has been awful are the attacks on Palins kids. It is disgraceful. Talking about her makeup cost and her wardrobe...ridiculous. How about her interview on CNN? Blatant bias...and it is rampant in this campaign. I am tired of this "Mccain is negative stuff"..fact is that calling a duck a duck or a socialist a socialist is fair game...it is about policies. The left seems to get offended pretty easily. Too bad the media or its pundants don;t point out the fact that Obama talks to his talking points and that is all..especially the 95% tax cut number..it is blatant disregard for the truth...but that is what he does, tells lies and half-truths without being called out on it.

  3. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: balanced media coverage?

    Quote Originally Posted by minicooper View Post
    No one is saying the reason McCain is losing is because of biased media.. but it is a variable that contributes to the equation.
    Does it? I'm not so sure. And the whole premise that McCain is getting negative coverage is flawed, IMO, because McCain was always the darling of the press up until very recently. Maybe McCain is only getting "negative" coverage now because his campaign has gotten so negative.

    And alexc.......you seem to be morew obsessed with Palin than anyone else! LOL......seriously, it's not all about Palin. McCain made the decision to go negative in his campaign- we can't blame Palin for that. Have you missed all the Republicans commenting on McCain's negative campaign tactics? I think it's telling that so many newspapers are also commenting on it. If it just wasn't so......as you seem to infer....then how to explain all that?

  4. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    602

    Post Re: balanced media coverage?

    To be honest I don't think the negativity by McCain would have been reported on as much if his campaign was actually organized and he hadn't blown his initial handling of the economic situation. Also, Palin's woes haven't helped. Her early interviews were a complete disaster. So as soon as they started going negative it looks like they did it because they had nothing else to stand on. And now with the rumors of infighting and the Repubs in other races starting to protect themselves, it looks desperate. Whereas Obama, who also has negative ads out there, has stayed consistently on message and no serious campaign implosion. Biden had one gaffe but compared to Palin's it's not that news worthy.

    Also as a side note to Palin's wardrobe...it was a huge miscalculation on the RNC's part...I shop at reasonably nice stores and I can't even imagine blowing 150,000 for 2.5 months of clothes....it's ludicrous. And given her hockey mom image, completely undercuts her message....just one more very bad decision on that side.

  5. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    912

    Post Re: balanced media coverage?

    Carrie -- Haven't found the time frame just before this study but here are some other stats:

    The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage—much worse than his main GOP rivals.
    Meanwhile, the tone of coverage of the two party front runners, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, was virtually identical, and more negative than positive, according to the study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.
    In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.

    http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

    and Jan1 - March 9: http://www.journalism.org/node/11266






    and





    These last plots indicate that his positives have increased since the conventions... but it also shows the trend following the economic bad news. I'll see what else I can find. My recollection is that there have only been a few "pockets" where the media turned on Obama... but mostly he has been treated with kid gloves..
    MC

  6. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    912

    Post Re: balanced media coverage?

    Quote Originally Posted by reines View Post
    Does it? I'm not so sure. And the whole premise that McCain is getting negative coverage is flawed, IMO, because McCain was always the darling of the press up until very recently. Maybe McCain is only getting "negative" coverage now because his campaign has gotten so negative.

    Are you arguing that a candidate's support does not follow media coverage? Perhaps not exactly.... but look at the trend. Carrie's right, this is too short a study to truly be convincing... but it should also not be discredited.

    MC

  7. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    602

    Post Re: balanced media coverage?

    Interesting. I think the Obama campaign has done an amazing job controlling their message and their people. Just with that alone they've decreased their negative coverage. They are very well prepared for everything that has been thrown at them and the diffused the situations well. Not sure you it's media bias when they are just doing a better job than everyone else. Note I was a Hillary supported and felt she got a raw deal on quite a bit of her coverage....the Obama campaing is just really, really good. Whoever is running it deserves a huge bonus.

  8. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Posts
    602

    Post Re: balanced media coverage?

    Also, if you look at the last two plots you posted, it makes sense.

    After the first debate, Obama did better than expected but foreign policy is his weak point. With the other debates he did better, but I think the big point is McCain didn't do well in the first two debates. And while the pundits felt McCain won the third on points, McCain's attitude towards Obama hurt him badly. So much so that people watching felt like Obama won.

    For the economic collapse, Obama got more support basically because McCain completely screwed up.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •