Seabee1973 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 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. Every time Obama made a mistake he was tired every time Mccain made a mistake he was an old man who didnt know what he was doing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Would you care, then, to address the wild disparity between the various outlets that are reporting precisely the same set of events? First, I'd want to make sure that there is no scorer error. How tight are the operational definitions? Are the operational definitions consistent used and understood by the scorers? Are the operational definitions even reasonable definitions. Interscorer bias, mortality bias, event bias, etc. Something like this has major validation threats. I'd want to see the methodology and training protocol before I trusted the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted November 1, 2008 Author Share Posted November 1, 2008 Somewhat.What if one campaign screws up more than the other one does. Then what? This is where you get into grey matter. Should the news report that McCain said cheney was the pres when he gaffed and should have said Bush? IMO neither campaign did anything news worthy in regards to screw-ups that were worthy of reporting. So than it just comes down to the news IMO. And if you are talking just the news, than there shouldn't be an issue with having balanced reporting. But since we aren't talking about reporting since the news doesn't do that, they commentate. If one side is biased, than we can't have either......reporting or balanced news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 First, I'd want to make sure that there is no scorer error. How tight are the operational definitions? Are the operational definitions consistent used and understood by the scorers? Are the operational definitions even reasonable definitions. Interscorer bias, mortality bias, event bias, etc. Something like this has major validation threats. I'd want to see the methodology and training protocol before I trusted the results. Here's the methodology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Does this mean that no one wants to address the apparent disparity between different outlets covering precisely the same news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Apparently not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcnativenerd Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Damn...Fox IS fair and balanced. No report on PBS, I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Damn...Fox IS fair and balanced. Actually, I'd have to say this shows it probably isn't. McCain likely had more negative stories around him than Obama, so the 50/50 split actually probably leans toward him, a conclusion that lines up with my general observations of Fox News. MSNBC, though, might as well have been issuing Obama campaign buttons to its anchors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Apparently not. Everything you have said in this thread is correct. :cool: Starting new and healthy habits is admirable at any age. I keed I keed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAARedskin Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 You won't hear a SINGLE story about the homeless once GOD takes office. Not until a Repub. becomes President again (yeah, libs the GOP will be back) will you see a story in the press dealing with the homeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 You won't hear a SINGLE story about the homeless once GOD takes office. Not until a Repub. becomes President again (yeah, libs the GOP will be back) will you see a story in the press dealing with the homeless. Well you are right. Once God takes office there won't be a single homeless person on the streets. After the republicans retake the white house (because the devil is very tempting) there will be plenty of people out on the streets. So yeah, it's kind of hard to do a story about homeless people when there aren't any. That's one of the beauties of electing God as president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Winning is fun. It makes reading threads like this so much more enjoyable. Sadly, you also realize how whinny yourself (liberals) must have sounded after 2000 and 2004 election. Don't worry guys, its gets easier over time.......actual, no it doesn't. You will complain for 4 years. Hahahah. Ahhh, good to finally win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Everything you have said in this thread is correct. :cool: Blind squirrel, nut, etc. etc.... Don't worry guys, its gets easier over time.......actual, no it doesn't. You will complain for 4 years. Hahahah. Ahhh, good to finally win. I hope you're not including me in that analysis. I'm a Libertarian, which means I always lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I thought it was nice that NBC was not as bad as MSNBC. I enjoy NBC for early morning news/traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Can I suggest that covering fairly does not mean that you have the same percentage of negative stories or positive stories about both candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Can I suggest that covering fairly does not mean that you have the same percentage of negative stories or positive stories about both candidates. Can I suggest (again) that the issue is not the percentage itself (because you have a point), but rather the wild disparity of percentage between different media outlets covering the same pool of events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Does this mean that no one wants to address the apparent disparity between different outlets covering precisely the same news? Obviously it's because one is right and the rest are all wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Honestly: I would say MOST of the coverage was fluff. No real deep nightly lineups of: Obama and McCain on healthcare here come the stats: No reall deep nightly lineups of: Obama and Mcain on the border: Where are your children? 4% of the people would watch that. But 40% will watch Wright and Palin bashing and McCain is old and panels of 6 different people yelling at each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bay Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Well you are right. Once God takes office there won't be a single homeless person on the streets. After the republicans retake the white house (because the devil is very tempting) there will be plenty of people out on the streets. Will it be like that Simpsons episode where the homeless people turn into mail boxes magically? Cypress Creek seems like a great place to live! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted November 10, 2008 Author Share Posted November 10, 2008 I've read through alot of this thread, which I started and what I find the most disturbing is the outright denial I find. Most of you have denied the evidence, tried to make some excuse for it, or don't believe it. yet I provided a link which has everything about how they compiled the data. Numbers don't lie. What disturbs me even more, is we all come on here and argue and debate, yet, when someone hears something they don't like, we get the perverbial "got a link" or "show me a link" So we do and when it proves our side, it's shot down and ignored. So why provide any background info or proof, if those whom we argue with are only going to deny it and ignore it?? I mean if that's the case, we might as well just continue to deal in heresay and opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Numbers don't lie, unless they're incorrect, but they do require context. How we frame numbers is very important. Numbers or stats are also stats. They give very specific information and it's often correlational. It doesn't tell us why or how, it just tells us a relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? The data do not provide conclusive answers. They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions. Obama’s coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before. Obama’s numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain’s numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore. Some of us did read it, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.