81artmonk Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 proof that the media has been biased towards Obama in this election. Msnbc 57% of stories about McCain were negative 14% of stories about Obama were negative CNN 61% of stories about McCain were negative 39% of stories about Obama were negative NBC 54% of stories about McCain were negative 43% of stories about Obama were negative CBS 92% of stories about McCain were negative 79% of stories about Obama were negative ABC 49% of stories about McCain were negative 36% of stories about Obama were negative Newspapers 69% of stories about McCain were negative 27% of stories about Obama were negative Fox 40% of stories about McCain were negative 40% of stories about Obama were negative http://journalism.org/node/13436 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 thats very interesting and not shocking at the same time. i have noticed that after every debate i leave feeling like mccain did well but within 1 day everyone is cheering for obama and it was like mccain was sleeping the whole time. oh well, such is life. when people want snake oil they pump up the salesman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Damn, CBS is a bunch of haters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 hahahaa...i was thinking the same thing. CBS be hating a mofo. damn that katie "joker" couric.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I think the "fairness" concept is hilarious. Who knew the universe would make certain that each political candidate would have an indentical number of positive and negative incidents during their campiagn. It's amazing, I never realized God was so perfectly even in all things related to campaigns. I mean certainly one campaign can't be better run than another, right? ... Anyone here think McCain and Obama both ran a campaign just as good as the other? Made the same number of missteps? Anyone? Truth should be sacrificed on the alter of fairness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 I think the "fairness" concept is hilarious. Who knew the universe would make certain that each political candidate would have an indentical number of positive and negative incidents during their campiagn. Truth should be sacrificed on the alter of fairness. We shouldn't even be discussing this issue. Since the news is suppose to report the news and it doesn't. It is basically a Op-ed for an hour based on the slant of that broadcast station. My post was to point out that fact. I found it rather interesting that Fox gets the most flack, yet they were the most balanced of all the stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoles11 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 They can't help that the McCain campaign keeps doing negative things to report on The campaign screws up the most is going to have more negative coverage, thats simple math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Seriously, I thought you guys labeled liberals as whiners . . . There are more reasons than just bias as to why the numbers would be this way. It's also not clear what is considered negative. Oh well, I'm done trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 you wanna see media bias? why don't you just look at the stories about Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyConway Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 They can't help that the McCain campaign keeps doing negative things to report on The campaign screws up the most is going to have more negative coverage, thats simple math. This is the good and obvious point. Since they're not breaking down actual issues and policy any more they base material on what the candidates and campaigns give to them. Here is a study from 2004. It shows how the coverage of Bush in 04' was mostly negative whereas in 2000 Gore had more negative coverage compared to Bush. http://journalism.org/node/196 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 It's obvious we need the fairness doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Wait, wait, wait. Let me see if I understand this. The only way your numbers would prove a point would be if you believed that Obama and McCain were exactly, completely, undeniably equal in every way. Otherwise, if one is better, the numbers should reflect that, yes? And even from a strictly objective standpoint, I find it hard to believe that anyone would deny that, at the very least, Obama has run one of the best campaigns in modern political history. Not that his policies are good. That can be argued for eternity. But his campaigning has been excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 Wait, wait, wait. Let me see if I understand this.The only way your numbers would prove a point would be if you believed that Obama and McCain were exactly, completely, undeniably equal in every way. They aren't my numbers. It's a company who monitors news and crunches the numebrs as to who is fair or unfair. No not really. It could many things. could be they chose to not run stories about Ayers or Acorn or Bidens gaffes. Could be something they chose to run against MCCain. I don't really think it has anything to do with equal. Like I said, this company looks at the news stories and crunches the numbers. They are merely taking raw data and showing what it says. Which is most news outlets ran more negative stories about McCain than Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefBigMeat Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 97% of stories about the Raiders are negative 13% of stories about the Titans are negative "Balanced" doesn't equal reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Did anyone else spot the Fox News being fair and balanced. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I think it has been covered in the thread well, but I have just two questions: How has negative and positive been operationally defined? Is accurasy of reporting events calculated into definition of negative and reporting? For example, if FOX reports that Obama is leaving the campaign trail to visit his ailing Grandmother, is that a positive story? If Joe McCain declares Northern Virginia Communist Country is that a negative story? Is it essential to stop reporting actual positives or negatives when they occur until Candidate A and B's level equalize? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 A good anecdotal example from NPR's coverage yesterday: During an interview with a McCain campaign official, the same question (regarding whether McCain truly thinks Obama is a socialist) was asked three times to put the official on the spot (for those who care, the answer was no, but his economic philosophy has much in common with socialism). the standard "poltiical answer" was not accepted by the reporter. During an interview with an Obama official, the gotcha question concerned a snarky new ad Obama has up criticizing McCain's choice of Palin. Their follow up was to ask whether Obama thought Palin was qualified (for those who care, the answer was: he thinks the American people should decide). This standard dodge was accepted without question. More telling however, was the huge opening the Obama official left that the reporter simply ignored. Part of the defense of the snarky new ad was to say that McCain had promised he would apply a certain criteria to his choice that the Obama camp feels he abandoned for political reasons -- fair enough. But the official stated something to the effect of McCain having broken a campaign promise in this instance. Now this is a huge opening to follow up with an inquiry into Obama's own broken promise regarding campaign financing. I'm an editor by trade and you simply DO NOT pass up red meat like this when it's laying right there for you; the NPR reporter passed right by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I probably agree with you, AMF. It sounds like that reporter (was it the same guy and one interview?) let his bias control his interview somewhat. I think both should be called out if both are guilty for the same issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 The issue is not so much the difference in percentage for any one news source, since it is quite true that news is not neutral, and thus if McCain screwed up more, he'd naturally get more negative coverage in a perfectly neutral world. The issue is the difference between the different outlets. Presumably, they're all covering the same stories, yet the percentages for positive/negative vary wildly. That can't be explained away by percentage of negative events to be covered, and method of determining positive/negative can't be a factor in that either, since presumably the same standard was used for each outlet. I think the only reasonable reading here is that Fox is slanted to McCain (since I'd say that he probably has screwed up more, meaning that an even break is actually a slant to the right), and MSNBC might as well be running ads for Obama on their ticker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 They aren't my numbers. It's a company who monitors news and crunches the numebrs as to who is fair or unfair. No not really. It could many things. could be they chose to not run stories about Ayers or Acorn or Bidens gaffes. Could be something they chose to run against MCCain. I don't really think it has anything to do with equal. Like I said, this company looks at the news stories and crunches the numbers. They are merely taking raw data and showing what it says. Which is most news outlets ran more negative stories about McCain than Obama. Right. And why do you suppose that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Give it up. The left wing minions here (and everywhere really) already know that the media is biased. But they wont, and cant, admit it. Otherwise their house of cards starts to fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Give it up. The left wing minions here (and everywhere really) already know that the media is biased. But they wont, and cant, admit it. Otherwise their house of cards starts to fall. Of course we admit that parts of the media are biased... FOX and Talk Radio is very biased :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 97% of stories about the Raiders are negative13% of stories about the Titans are negative "Balanced" doesn't equal reality. Great post Chief. Plus bonus points for a football analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Hopefully we will soon find out that the american people are biased aganst McCain as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 I think the only reasonable reading here is that Fox is slanted to McCain (since I'd say that he probably has screwed up more, meaning that an even break is actually a slant to the right), and MSNBC might as well be running ads for Obama on their ticker... That comment shows you posted based on your feelings and not on the data. most people didn't even go to the post and read how this company gets to it's conclusions, since they are questioning the data. the site explains all that. This arguement that it isn't fair, so what, is false. First the news isn't suppose to be and op-ed hour. Second, the facts are the facts. that's like denying the poll numbers after an election, by saying, some how they must be wrong. Numbers are numbers and like them or not they are what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.