Originally Posted By dshyates It becomes plainly obvious who is spoonfed talking points and those that are not. Right wing radio is the bain of information.
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>when hopemax posts actual data from an actual research firm that completely obliterates this right-wing fantasy of the "Obama Lovefest" it's completely ignored.<<< Ecdc, hopemax's post had been there 19 minutes when you made this statement. Perhaps you should allow time for responses before going "over the top".
Originally Posted By hopemax friendofdd, I made the original post on a thread Saturday morning. It's now Tuesday. I think it is to this that ecdc is referring. Since, he probably saw the original post. <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-98742-P-2.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...-P-2.asp</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Ecdc, hopemax's post had been there 19 minutes when you made this statement. Perhaps you should allow time for responses before going "over the top".<< Except as hopemax pointed out, he'd made this post previously. And yet despite that, we still get the same tired charges about that evil liberal media fawning over Obama. Which is why I made the reference to truthiness. It just "feels right" to conservatives that Obama is getting a pass from those icky liberals in the media, so it must be true. Except it isn't.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>she'd<< Crap. Sorry Sadly, I suppose I have to acknowledge that my assumption says something about me. My apologies. Also, I can of course grant that plano or others may not have seen hopemax's original post. Fair enough. But I've heard enough of these silly claims about the media and Obama over the past several months that I strongly suspect most of those making them aren't too worried about the reality. Yet again, it just "seems true" so it must be.
Originally Posted By dshyates They simply don't believe you or you liberal sources. They get their head filled with it from their "infomed" sources and thats that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think Obama did get a bit of a lovefest in the primaries, just as McCain did in the 2000 primaries. Insurgents usually do. Remember, Clinton was considered "inevitable" by the conventional wisdom, so anyone who presented her a stiff challenge was going to get some of that lovefest, just as McCain did in 2000 when he challenged Bush. I think part of McCain's grumpiness, in fact, stems from no longer being the media darling on the level he was 8 years ago. Once Obama became the presumptive nominee (in June), I don't think it's been a lovefest any more, except from the left-wing commentators (as opposed to straight newsmen/women), just as McCain gets lots of love from right-wing commentators now. In fact, if anything I think McCain has skated on a lot of his gaffes, as there's an unstated (perhaps even unconscious) desire among the media as a whole to make this as interesting/close a race as possible; so when Obama was leading in the polls, if anything, there was a tendency to let some whoppers from McCain slide. And most news outlets are bending over backwards to be balanced; for instance, when Obama's overseas trip was just positive after positive, I saw plenty of people TRYING to find a negative in it somewhere. "He got a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin... could this be a negative for him if he seems too popular among Europeans?" Or "He looks presidential. But is he being presumptuous by looking that presidential?" It was like they had to find some down side, even if the trip was going without a hitch.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I also think a lot of this 'media bias' perception harks back to the period where the democratic primary was being hotly contested while the GOP side had already sewn up their candidate. Hence, the 'news' is going to come from the democratic side - the "he said / she said' back and forth between hillary and obama. So during that period - yes, obama received more coverage than mccain, but that's because obama's campaign was newsworthy and mccain was mostly sitting on the sidelines.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 how does that explain 7 articles in one day in the Chicago Sun Times on Obama and 1 that mentioned McClain - this was last week - not during the primaries. that's balanced ? Hell if all I read were theSun Times I wouldn't know there was another candidate And this is not a democratic vs GOP thing for me, Obama also got much more positive coverage than Hillary in the primaries and she brought that up also.
Originally Posted By Mr X Got any example other than a Chicago paper? Of COURSE he's gonna get a lot of coverage there, it's where he's FROM (duh).
Originally Posted By gadzuux Hometown hero? As someone said earlier, compare that to the local phoenix paper for McCain. Who really knows?
Originally Posted By Mr X More appropriately, compare it to a local Phoenix paper 8 years ago. Any links to some archives? That would be interesting to check out.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "how does that explain 7 articles in one day in the Chicago Sun Times on Obama and 1 that mentioned McClain - this was last week - not during the primaries. that's balanced ? Hell if all I read were theSun Times I wouldn't know there was another candidate" Maybe because that's Obama's home turf?? Papers outside of Chicago are not covering him nearly as much. I looked at 4 NY papers this morning and none of them had any major stories about him...
Originally Posted By dshyates My local paper only has one (1) article concerning either of the candidates. Guess who its about? <a href="http://www.register-herald.com/local/local_story_218202849.html" target="_blank">http://www.register-herald.com...849.html</a>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Got any example other than a Chicago paper? Of COURSE he's gonna get a lot of coverage there, it's where he's FROM (duh).< well duh, 7 - 10 million people read these papers and trust me, he's done so little here he might as well not be from here. I didn't realize there was yet another set of rules that made this OK. I didn't get that memo.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think we're just saying it's natural for Obama to get more coverage in a Chicago paper. I wouldn't be surprised if McCain gets more in AZ papers. During the primaries, here in NY Hillary got more than Obama, because the papers here always consider her "good copy."
Originally Posted By friendofdd Extremely interesting interview with two people who study what the media is doing. This is just a teaser from near the end. You will benefit from reading the entire article. >>>The phenomenon that we're talking about here is not that McCain is being ignored, that he's not able to get his word out in the mainstream media. It's that this thing, Barack Obama, is head and shoulders a different category of treatment of a candidate that we've ever seen before. So it's not that McCain is getting the short end of the stick. It's that -- you know, Obama is not getting a stick. He's getting a different category. He's getting a log, not a stick.<<< <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july08/ontheroad_07-25.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb...-25.html</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I don't think John McCain is going to win a single vote by crying about how unfair the coverage is. He should make some NEWS if he wants coverage. His ads have made lots of news this week, for ridiculing Obama's energy plan. Of course, the coverage of that has looked bad, because those ads are a lie. And it looks really silly to mock the idea of properly inflated tires as a small PART of a way to save fuel, as every govt. agency and car expert agrees it is a valid way to make sure you are getting the most MPG from your vehicle. But McCain, clearly, is going to jump on any syllable Obama says in an effort to mock and jeer. I guess that's easier than actually presenting one's vision and ideas and letting people decide in a grown up way. He's so busy looking for his "gotcha!" moment, just as Bill Clinton did vs. Obama in the primaries, that he winds up with egg on his own face, then whines about it. If he gets sidelined for those tactics, too bad. It's going to get very old by November.
