Merkwurdigliebe,

It’s fascinating to me you have a degree IN ANYTHING with the sad level of intelligence you’ve displayed throughout this conversation. I have literally explained to you at least three times now why it doesn’t matter whether there is a “consensus” on what a negative statement is for this study and you just fail to grasp it. To be honest, arguing with someone who doesn’t understand a simple study even after it’s been repeatedly explained to them is a waste of my time. Where did you get your degree anyway, community college? I’m going to try this one last time. If you don’t get it you don’t get it (which if you don’t wouldn’t surprise me as you are a Republican).

“WHAT THE HELL IS A NEGATIVE STATEMENT HOW DOES ONE KNOW WHEN ONE HAS BEEN UTTERED WHEN THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON A WHAT A NEGATIVE STATEMENT IS?”

Try to focus. Listen to some Beethoven or something if you think it will help. Take deep breaths…now read: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER YOU THINK THESE INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS ARE NEGATIVE OR NOT. WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THE SAME TYPE NEGATIVE OF STATEMENTS ARE EQUALLY CONSIDERED FOR BOTH CANDIDATES IN THE STUDY.

You are objecting to this study because you do not feel the “negative” statements about Barak Obama (which I’ve listed in my original post) are “negative,” only that they’re legitimately “critical” of him. Others may not share your view and think the same statements are extremely negative. This does not matter. There IS no consensus on what a negative statement is or even what a legitimately critical statement is. The researchers know this and factored it in by figuring the same would be true regarding “negative” statements about McCain: some looking at the study would regard “negative” statements about McCain as legitimately “critical,” etc…

The type of statements classified as “negative” for Obama ARE THE SAME TYPE OF STATEMENTS CLASSIFIED AS “NEGATIVE” FOR MCCAIN. Thus it doesn’t matter whether you or anyone else feels statements about Obama are in fact “negative,” because the same criteria is being used for the statements about McCain. All that matters is the number of statements fitting that criteria that were made on t.v. The study shows there were more negative statements about Obama than McCain, and less positive statements about Obama than McCain.

“IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW THE STUDY WAS TAKEN, ADMINSTERED, OR OTHER PARAMETERS CONCERNING THEREOF, THEN NO MATTER WHAT THE CRITERIA WERE, IT IS IRELEVANT.”

You are an idiot. You’re saying the entire study is irrelevant just because I wasn’t a member of the research team. Do have any idea how retarded that sounds? AND WHY DID YOU WRITE THE WORD “THEREOF?” YOU JUST SOUND RIDICULOUS. I gave you the name of the study and the school that conducted it. You could have gone to their site and read their methodology yourself. That you didn’t shows how irresponsible your comments really are (which is especially amusing considering how often you rail at others-minorities- for being “irresponsible”). Since you are too irresponsible and stupid to look up the CMPA’s methodology here it is from their own webpage:

“The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) employs content analysis to study news coverage. “Content analysis” is a social scientific method for producing an objective and systematic description of communicative material. In order to be scientific, such analysis requires explicit rules and procedures that minimize a researcher’s subjective predispositions. Categories and criteria are rigorously defined and applied consistently to all material. Each system must be reliable, meaning that additional researchers using the same criteria should reach the same conclusions. Because it is both systematic and reliable, content analysis permits the research to transcend the realm of impressionistic generalizations, which are subject to individual preferences and prejudices.”

Read the fourth sentence again, Merkwurdigliebe: “CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA ARE RIGOROUSLY DEFINED AND APPLIED CONSISTENTLY TO ALL MATERIAL.” Give yourself some time for it to sink in. What does it mean? It means exactly what I’ve been telling you over and over again for the past 5 days: the statements categorized as “negative” about Obama ARE THE SAME TYPE OF STATEMENTS CATEGORIZED AS “NEGATIVE” ABOUT MCCAIN. These statements are “consistently applied” to both candidates precisely to make concerns like yours about “negativity” irrelevant.

“All of those policies affect only the business side of the equation, and have little effect on FREEDOMS ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.”

The “business side of the equation” is the WHOLE POINT. The “freedom of the press” is irrelevant if the press doesn’t print (or these days repeat over and over) stories because of business concerns.

Please Merkwurdigliebe, show me some sign of intelligent life. This is getting really boring.

Merken: Every single large industry fares better under Republican rule. It’s called corporate tax breaks. And, they’ve never been larger. So, wouldn’t they actually lobby for republicans? The media/news, itself, may not be any different, but, behind the scenes, the CEO’s are pulling for republicans. It may be pure economics, but it’s a bias nonetheless.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Hellooo– Yawn. This is getting embarrasing. But here goes: IF YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW THE STUDY WAS TAKEN, ADMINSTERED, OR OTHER PARAMETERS CONCERNING THEREOF, THEN NO MATTER WHAT THE CRITERIA WERE, IT IS IRELEVANT. If the basic premise of the study is flawed, than any criteria are meaningless. And if negative statements arent clearly defined, THEN WHAT THE HELL IS A NEGATIVE STATEMENT HOW DOES ONE KNOW WHEN ONE HAS BEEN UTTERED WHEN THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON A WHAT A NEGATIVE STATEMENT IS? I have asked you time and time again to provide something about the study, and you’ve dodged the question every time. Jesus, you’re the one who’s retarded

Media companies benefit REGARDLESS of who is in power. Please to Christ tell me you understand this. All of those policies affect only the business side of the equation, and have little effect on FREEDOMS ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION. And plenty of Democrats are for them too. The media is in a win-win; they profit off of whomever is in office. Simply because YOU think the Media fares better under Republicans is YOUR opinion, and far from fact.

And the reason this is a race is bacause of Obama’s own shortcomings and novice decisions. The media has little to do with it. Obama has not been offered difficult questions, no stringent coverage has been offered his way, and you can tout your ONE study all you want, but that doesnt make it anymore true, or you right. So dont educated me on the media; I have a degree concerning it. You just seem to be a jackass passing his ridiculously biased opinions as fact.

Apparently I was right. You do not understand this argument. Small wonder as Republican stupidity is responsible for every one of the mistakes of the last 8 years. You are simply a water boy for stupidity, Merkwurdigliebe. How does that feel?

“What constitutes a negative/positive statement are not clearly defined, and the evidence you’ve provided means zilch and is questionable at best.”

What prevents you from understanding that this does not matter? Both Obama and McCain are being judged BY THE SAME CRITERIA whether it be undefined negative statements or not. It does not matter that the negative statements about Obama are not clearly defined because the negative statements about McCain are not clearly defined either. BOTH ARE COUNTED THE SAME WAY AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS. Please Christ tell me you in some way understand this.

“Media corporations benefit no matter who’s in charge due to Constitutional and Press freedoms”

You seem to be acknowledging that I am right: media corporations benefit MORE when a Republican committed to deregulation, low corporate taxes, anti-union policies, free trade, etc… is in office. These people are accountable to their shareholders moron, WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY’RE GOING TO DO? The simple fact is that you cannot argue this point. I win Republican.

“And most news is delivered straight up. News is news, its what happened, and can’t be slanted to far,”

Totally irrelevant. This study was based on opinion in major channel reporting, not fact. Read the study.

“Also, since Obama has dominated coverage, it would stand to reason that he garners more “negative” statements (a loaded term)…if McCain were suddenly the more photogenic candidate, the numbers would reflect it.”

If you really were a journalist you’d be reprimanded on how blatantly misleading this statement is. First, Obama garners more negative statements AS A PERCENTAGE OF HIS OVERALL COVERAGE, not simply because he receives more coverage. That is the entire point. Second you write: “if McCain were suddenly the more photogenic candidate, the numbers would reflect it” This sentence means absolutely nothing at all. It is a pathetically juvenile attempt to erroneously insinuate that McCain’s negatives would go up at the expense of his positives were he more photogenic. Another way of saying that is: the more photogenic a candidate the more unpopular he is. This is clearly ridiculous on its face. I can embarrass you all day tomorrow too republican…

“If McCain is getting all of these positive statements (again, what does that mean?), the numbers would reflect it.”

THE NUMBERS ARE REFLECTING IT NIMROD. The only reason this race is even close IS BECAUSE OF THE MEDIA. Obama wins on every major issue except terrorism, he is more “photogenic,” he better represents “change” from an 8 year incumbent, he is running a far better campaign and he is FAR better qualified than McCain to be commander in chief. If the media weren’t so right wing McCain would be 30 points behind. But as you said Merkwurdigliebe, the media is self serving: it’s in their interest to have a close race. Why else would they favor McCain so blatantly as this study proves?

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Hellooo- Honestly, do we have to do this again? I’ve already pointed out where your argument is blatantly false, yet you keep coming.

But, I’ll say it again:
Its only one study, and hardly comprehensive. What constitutes a negative/positive statement are not clearly defined, and the evidence you’ve provided means zilch and is questionable at best. You’ve given no record of how the survey was conducted, who determines what is a negative statement, etc. Pointing out differnces, weaknesses, or faulty points is not being negative. Its called reporting the facts about a candidate. Also, since Obama has dominated coverage, it would stand to reason that he garners more “negative” statements (a loaded term)…if McCain were suddenly the more photogenic candidate, the numbers would reflect it. Again, even if Obama is succeeding despite press coverage as you suggest, then the study means nothing. Even the “conservative” media cant stop him. Also, if the media is in the tank for McCain, why isnt every news broadcast flowery rhetoric, and his numbers through the roof? If McCain is getting all of these positive statements (again, what does that mean?), the numbers would reflect it.

How about those large corporations you cited? So what? Media corporations benefit no matter who’s in charge due to Constitutional and Press freedoms, and Parent Corporations are so large they make money no matter who’s in charge. Republicans and Dem’s have too similar positions on the matter to make a difference in any case. YOU think the media is conservative…hell, honestly, why bother. I’ve already proven you wrong previously, and as a journalist myself your notions about the media are borderline comedic, the basic warmed over liberal pap that bubbles up whenever you all dont get your way with the press.

And for a great many, yes, press coverage does determine who gets elected. Ask Ron Paul, or any 3rd party candidate. Coverage is a godsend, which is why campgaigns spend most of their money on ad slots during newscasts. Keep it coming, I can embarrass YOU all day…

And most news is delivered straight up. News is news, its what happened, and can’t be slanted to far, due to rules and regulation governing such things. You’re speaking about COMMENTARY, which is a totally different ball game, and the spin on it can be whatever the host, network, or market determines. You want straight up news? Go to headline news, the AP Newswire, or Reuters. Only a jackass would think commentary like Olberman or O’Reilly is real news. And to cut you off– yawn, I’m an evil republican, I’ll get over it…

Merkwurdigliebe,

AGAIN, it doesn’t matter whether you think the statements critical of Obama are negative or questioning or neither. The WHOLE POINT IS THAT THE SAME NEGATIVE/QUESTIONING STATEMENTS ARE BEING MADE ABOUT MCCAIN LESS OFTEN and that positive statements are being made about McCain more often. You have not addressed this point and the fact that you have not on multiple occasions simply shows either A: that you are not intelligent enough to grasp it or B: that you are deliberately glossing over it. My vote is for A, as you have repeatedly proven yourself to have an IQ rivaling that of Forrest Gump. The truth is this concept is the entire argument. That you can’t address it shows that willingly or not, you acknowledge that this study HAS PROVEN THE MEDIA TO BE ON MCCAIN’S SIDE REGARDING THIS PRESIDENTIAL RACE. You lose, Republican.

“all polling data seems to shoot holes in your theory that Obama is garnering “negative” press. He is comfortably ahead in all polls, so all of this “negative” reporting is negligible.”

Obama is doing well in the polls DESPITE the press not because of it moron. According to your statement you believe that only press reporting determines who is elected. If that were true the opinion of the press would be the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHO IS PRESIDENT and you would worship at your temple of press opinion accordingly. That you do not simply shows that you do not believe what you wrote. I can embarrass you all day, Merkwurdigliebe. Keep it coming…

“And your analysis of the media is all wrong. Profits come before ideology in nearly all cases, and a profit ideology is not synonymous with conservative ideology.”

Actually in most cases it is. Address the examples I provided in the previous post if you want to actually argue. If not you’re admitting you’re wrong and that the media is conservative because it is owned by large corporations that benefit from Republican rule.

“which leads to the conclusion that the media is not liberal, nor conservative, but self-serving.”

Exactly. Being self serving means reporting with a conservative slant so more conservatives will be elected and provide your company with greater profits. You’ve manifestly proven the media to be conservative via your own arguments, Merkwurdigliebe. Keep up the good work.

Fine Aversa, you want answers? Okay, here goes. Barack Obama only promised to take public financing if his opponent would. Since his opponent wouldn’t commit to it, and since Obama had to do SOMETHING since his primary went much longer than McCain’s, he chose private financing. Immediately after Obama announcing he would take private financing, McCain announces he would take public financing and villainizing his opponent for flip-flopping on the issue. Typical smear-tactic politics. But, if you want to compare that to all the FOREIGN AFFAIRS GAFFES that McCain has spewed, fine. But, remember this: McCain’s strongest platform for running is his foreign affairs ‘experience’ (now that his Maverick status has been revoked).

As far as Obama legislation, just go to wikipedia and see for yourself to form your own opinion.
Another piece of evidence that McCain is getting a free pass: he’s against his own legislation now. Yes, Aversa, he’s against the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform. Look it up, but you probably won’t be able to find it anywhere. And, since nobody is asking him about it, good luck.

Aversa, I’m not trying to change your mind about voting for McGoo. I just think your arguments are shallow and typical of right-wing ideology. Facts be damned. Redirect and deflect whenever possible.

Merk wrote,

“Unfortunately, voters still tend to base their decisions via the mainstream news outlets.”

Actually, I read that it’s worse than that. The majority of voters tend to base their decision on, I hate to say it, commercials!

The future of our country, decided on 30 seconds of rhetoric.

Sad indeed.

Jed Clampett

did anyone think he would actually see logic rather than using the little bit he has left to understand the issue instead of finding ways of justifying an indefensible position? Exactly like the politicians in Washington.
They need to all be purged and replaced by citizens willing to work for the benefit of the whole rather than the profits of a few.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Hellooo– Again, those arent negative statements, so the study seems flawed and I would hesitate to use it. The fact that YOU think it’s true is irrelevant.

And stating that O’Reilly and Beck once supported this guy doesnt make him bi-partisan, objective, or right…talking heads will use whomever in order to justify their points…just because his results concurred with their vision in 06 doesnt mean he’s right in this situation, and from the evidence you’ve provided the statements are A) not negative, merely questioning of Obama (as they should be, and they should be welcomed), B) all polling data seems to shoot holes in your theory that Obama is garnering “negative” press. He is comfortably ahead in all polls, so all of this “negative” reporting is negligible. The fact that McCain is still in the race at all is due to Obama campaign blunders and naivete, rather than the big bad media. Again, the evidence appears to be flawed in that it quantifies any questioning of Obama as negative, whilst only gushing praise is good. The media should be critical of him, as he is the frontrunner, and even the statements you’ve provided arent particularly critical either.

And your analysis of the media is all wrong. Profits come before ideology in nearly all cases, and a profit ideology is not synonymous with conservative ideology. News occurs no matter who is president; Dem or Repub, the media still makes money and could care less about who’s in charge. The media is also the beneficiary of a multitude of constitutional protections that make it largely immune from govt action (particularly the print press). If you’re talking about commentary on news stations, then thats another story, but that falls into a different category, as thats opinion, and it can be either conservative (Beck) or liberal (Olberman), depending on the market a station is trying to reach. Its also opinion, not fact.

which leads to the conclusion that the media is not liberal, nor conservative, but self-serving. It’s just your opinion that it is.

Coach– thats the beauty of the internet, as concerned citizens can find out all they want about candidates. Unfortunately, voters still tend to base their decisions via the mainstream news outlets, in which McCain is lacking in coverage. I dont think if coverage increased that McCain would do any better, but at least let the man be heard. We’ll see…perhaps this election will be the first majorly informed by the internet.

Hey Coach, nice try back at you. First, it`s an old ploy answering a question with another question, because you don`t have an answer. So I take it you could not find even one accomplishment of note by Obama.
As far as McCain now being against his bill. I think you are confusing it with the McCain/Kennedy Immigration Bill that did not pass.
But if you want to go their. How about Obama making a commitment with McCain to using public finance for their campaign. But then when he realize he could make more money through private contributions, he bowed out of that commitment. So much for sticking to your principles. Let me say I don`t care about verbal gaffs. As many speeches and interviews both of these guys give It`s to be expected. I could come up with Obama gaffs but what`s the point?
Making a moral equivalence between McCain and the Guantanimo detainees is entering into Bazzaro World. Besides comparing McCain`s torture experience to their kit glove treatment is a sick joke. And I don`t think the ACLU was allow in to represent McCain.

Merkwurdigliebe wrote:

“Those quantify as negative statements? At most, they’re critical questions that need to be asked of the frontrunner. And if this is all the “negative” press Obama has to worry about, then he needn’t be worried. But the study seems flawed…any “criticism” of Obama is seemingly negative, while any heaping of praise is positive…sure, would you rather have Obama sail into the Whitehouse no questions asked?”

You miss the point completely. It doesn’t matter whether you think the statements are “negative” or “critical.” That is irrelevant. What matters is that the same kinds of “negative/critical” statements are distributed unevenly among the candidates, with more “negative/critical” statements being made about Obama and less about McCain. That is the whole reason the study concludes the press is biased against Obama. This is not hard to understand.

“At least Obama gets coverage, McCain has gotten very little, positive or negative.”

I already addressed this (did you read what I wrote?) Again: “But the center’s director, RobertLichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts.
“This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage,” he said.”

“That said, this doenst prove the media is “Conservative” any more than it is “Liberal”…both accusation are tired warhorses for hobgoblins of little minds who get angry when ANYTHING questioning is leveled at their exalted leader, left or right, and furthermore, demonstrate a limited understanding of the media in general.”

This is absolutely ridiculous. Claiming the media is biased is strategic: it allows you to discredit news that is not in your favor, turn people to outlets sympathetic to your views and possibly gain leeway with the press in the future. The right has been claiming the media has a left wing bias for 40 years and has succeeded in part because of it. Here’s a quote literally explaining the strategy behind claims of media bias: Republican party chair Rich Bond compared journalists to referees in a sporting match: “if you watch any great coach what they try to do is “work the refs.” Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time.”

The truth is that the press is a business that supports its programming through ad revenue. Because of that coverage tilts towards supporting industry and mercatilism, interests almost always represented by Republicans. Deregulation, anti-unions, corporate taxes, free trade and “frivolous” lawsuits are just some of the issues corporations classically support Republicans because of. News corporations are no different: they slant their coverage conservative so that the public will elect politicians who serve their corporate financial interests. This is not hard to understand.

As I’ve said before, this study is just more evidence of what we’ve always known: the media supports right wing candidates over democratic ones.

Merk: If McCain has gotten so little coverage, as you allege, then how is it we know of all his gaffes?

Gaffes:
Iran is training Al Qaida.

The Sunni-dominated gov’t of Iraq.

On the Iraq/Pakistan border.

Czechoslovakia.

Against tax cuts, for them now.

Against drilling, for them.

For campaign finance, against now.

Let’s face one simple fact: Obama is more popular right now than McCain, therefore he’s going to get more coverage, just like you say Merk……

And, just because you may not like either candidate, doesn’t mean they’re not qualified. Is there a ‘qualification’ test to become President? Obviously not if ‘W’ can win it twice……

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Helloo– Those quantify as negative statements? At most, they’re critical questions that need to be asked of the frontrunner. And if this is all the “negative” press Obama has to worry about, then he needn’t be worried. But the study seems flawed…any “criticism” of Obama is seemingly negative, while any heaping of praise is positive…sure, would you rather have Obama sail into the Whitehouse no questions asked? The press should be asking tough questions of the man (after all, getting electing shouldn’t be a creampuff deal), and from the evidence you’ve provided, those questions dont seem too negative (though they do cut into his personality cult…perhaps all that glitters isnt gold?), and they should be expected. At least Obama gets coverage, McCain has gotten very little, positive or negative. Whatever you think about the man, let him sink or swim on his own merit with at least some coverage. Let the people decide if his campaing should be ended due to gaffs. That said, this doenst prove the media is “Conservative” any more than it is “Liberal”…both accusation are tired warhorses for hobgoblins of little minds who get angry when ANYTHING questioning is leveled at their exalted leader, left or right, and furthermore, demonstrate a limited understanding of the media in general.

Coach & Aversa– You’re both beating around the bush of the same point: neither of these two clowns deserve to get elected. To vote for either is to perpetuate the cycle of two party corruption that has existed from the Kennedy era onward, if not earlier. So hammer it home– vote Libertarian, vote Green, vote Populist, vote Independent. Because no real change, or good change, is going to come from within Washington

Thanks for this aversa:

“Well Coach, since you asked, I`ll give you The McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill for one. But I`m sure you can come up with some great legislation with Obama`s name on it. And if you don`t think 6 years in a POW Camp being subject to torture which you did not allow it break your spirit. Then you know nothing about real character in a person and I doubt if you have the ability to bring real substance to any forum.”

First of all, are you talking about the same legislation that McCain’s is AGAINST now? Good one.

And, by your ratioonale, everyone at Guantanimo Bay that didn’t crack under pressure is qualified to be your president. Good luck with that.

As soon as McCain can identify the differences between Sunni, Shia, Al Qaida, and the borders of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Chech Republic, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Slovakia, I’ll give him some credit. Until then, you’re just grasping to a perpetrated legend about a man who was captured by the ‘enemy’.

Nice try though…..

Coach:
“As far as what he’s ever done of substance? Well, I guess that’s all in the eyes of the beholder. But, since we’re on the subject, what has McCain done of any substance? What if he never was captured by the enemy? Would anyone even know who he is? So, failure is a positive thing?”
Well Coach, since you asked, I`ll give you The McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill for one. But I`m sure you can come up with some great legislation with Obama`s name on it. And if you don`t think 6 years in a POW Camp being subject to torture which you did not allow it break your spirit. Then you know nothing about real character in a person and I doubt if you have the ability to bring real substance to any forum. So why don`t you give the real reason you don`t like McCain. As far as Obama, aside from his politics, he seems like a pleasant and smart guy. But I require more than that of my mechanic never mind a President. Oh but wait, he did give his thoughts about oil prices today. He said to a crowd, I paraphrase: “If everybody would just inflate their tires we could save enough oil to equal what we import”.
Well, problem solved.

Merkwurdigliebe wrote:
“did the study define what constitutes “negative” statements?”

Yes: “The center reviews and “codes” statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama “has problems” with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.

The positive and negative remarks about each candidate are then totaled to calculate the percentages that cut for and against them.” (LA Times)

“Examples of Obama’s evaluations:

Positive: “Obama came to Baghdad and he brought his star power with him…..hundreds of U.S. troops and State Department personnel mobbed Obama at the embassy here.” –Terry Moran, ABC

Negative: “You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying, even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, ‘why’?” – Katie Couric, CBS

Negative: “Far more Americans say John McCain would be a good commander in chief than Obama” – Jake Tapper, ABC”
(Quotes from the Center for Media and Public Affairs).

Merkwurdigliebe wrote:
“The Rev. Wright story is about it. Plain fact: Obama has dominated news coverage in the past month, with about 77% of campaign news devoted to him. Several studies conducted by the AP have confirmed this assessment.”

The George Mason study addressed this:

“I wrote last week that the networks should do more to better balance the air time. But I also suggested that much of the attention to Obama was far from glowing.

But the center’s director, RobertLichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts.

“This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage,” he said.”

Merkwurdigliebe wrote:
“So the media may follow the money, but study upon study has proven that Obama has dominated news coverage since he was named nominee…and it’s ridiculous and false to paint the media as conservative when its not.”

As shown above, more coverage does not mean positive coverage. Simply because the wing media covers Obama more does not mean they’re liberal. To the contrary, it means they’re conservative since the majority of their coverage of Obama is negative. (hint for Merkwurdigliebe: more negative coverage is worse for a candidate than less positive coverage).

Once again we have proof that the media is right wing and tries to tear down Democratic candidates. How is this not easy to understand?

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Helooo– did the study define what constitutes “negative” statements? Because simply asking tough questions about Obama shouldnt qualify as being “negative.” The Rev. Wright story is about it. Plain fact: Obama has dominated news coverage in the past month, with about 77% of campaign news devoted to him. Several studies conducted by the AP have confirmed this assessment. McCain has been shut out. Regardless of what he says, at least give the man coverage to say it. Let him sink or swim on national tv. Obama continues to skate by, with the Brokaw interview last sunday being the closest thing to a tough interview he’s encountered.

This can be explained; Obama is the exciting candidate, and brings in more viewers than McCain, meaning higher ratings and higher advertising revenues. McCain can say whatever he wants and get away with it because he isnt being covered…no treatment whatsoever is not preferential treatment. So the media may follow the money, but study upon study has proven that Obama has dominated news coverage since he was named nominee…and it’s ridiculous and false to paint the media as conservative when its not (hint: its not liberal either)

Latest proof that the media is right wing and biased against Democrats (as if any proof were needed):

“The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.”

“During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.”

”

It might be tempting to discount the latest findings by Lichter’s researchers. But this guy is anything but a liberal toady.

In 2006, conservative cable showmen Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly had Lichter, a onetime Fox News contributor, on their programs. They heralded his findings in the congressional midterm election: that the networks were giving far more positive coverage to the Democrats.”

McCain idiotically says Iran is training Al Qaeda REPEATEDLY and gets away with it? If Obama had made the same mistake it would be the end of his presidential campaign. There is simply no question at all that the right wing mainstream media is in the tank for McCain.

“The corporate media is not a watchdog protecting us from the powerful, it is a lapdog begging for scraps.”

Somewhere,

Just this week;
NPR.org had a story comparing, in detail, both McCain and Obama’s education plan. The LA times did the same on tax reform, criticizing both plans as wasteful. If you want to know what Obama’s foreign policy will be, watch his Berlin speech. His own website has details of his middle class tax relief proposal (as do many non-partisan sites). My point is, corporate media may not be giving many details, but the information is out there if you can sort through the bs and find it. Granted, it shouldn’t be so hard to find these things out, but if it’s important to you, as it is me, it is possible.

Somewhere In The Middle

Coach, I’m not vilifying Obama, it’s not his fault that people are more interested in the cult of personality than his plans and policies. I don’t fault him for his trip to Iraq or Europe. He can go wherever the hell he wants as far as I’m concerned. I am saying that the media is greatly lacking in integrity and is more concerned about pushing agendas (both right and left) than “reporting” the news these days.

If Barack Obama had been a member of the Keating 5, it would be mentioned in every story you hear or read. Yet many people who say they’ll vote for McCain don’t even know that about him (or many other things they should).

And if Obama had ’screwed’ up the particulars about foreign affairs that McCain has screwed up, he’d probably be kicked out of office. So, lay off the ‘free pass’ for a while since the biggest pass is being given to McCain. It’s not as if the media is even asking McCain ANYTHING.

I’m not arguing the fact that the media isn’t asking the tough questions, but it goes both ways, so don’t villify Obama for the media’s lack of integrity. It’s the same thing for his huge draw on the european trip. Don’t villify him just because people want to see him.

Again, somebody PLEASE bring something of some substance to the ‘rip Obama’ table, please………

Somewhere In The Middle

Coach, I’m referring to the pass that the media has given Obama in regards to questioning how he plans to bring about all this “change” he is talking about. He has pretty much gotten a free pass to stand out there and say that he will change things and make things better, but no one is pressing him about how he plans to do that. And by the way, if John McCain had said that there were 57 states in the US, the liberals in the media would have had a field day with him. Obama got a mention on some of the news stories.

Unfortunately for McCain, the only image people remember from that trip was that of Joe Lieberman reminding gramps that al-Qaeda were Sunni, not Shiite.

Thus crystallizing one of the campaign’s most important themes:

That McCain doesn’t know $hit, and doesn’t care anyhow.

Good point about McCain taking the same Mideast/Europe trip, Coach.

Here’s a quote from WAPO at the time of McCain’s trip (Mar 2008).

“His strategists believe that the image of McCain standing shoulder-to-shoulder with world leaders in world capitals will nonetheless crystallize one of the campaign’s most important themes: that McCain alone has the experience and foreign policy savvy to be president. Republicans hope to highlight a “stature gap” between McCain and his Democratic rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.”

What isn’t Obama allowed to do the same?

Aversa’s crap is yet another example of republican hypocrisy at it’s worst.

Aversa, would you please make some sense of your distaste for Obama? Again, first you tell him to go. Then, you villainize him for the crowds he draws. McCain made the same trip months earlier to, obviously, less fanfare. Don’t blame Obama for the fanfare. As far as what he’s ever done of substance? Well, I guess that’s all in the eyes of the beholder. But, since we’re on the subject, what has McCain done of any substance? What if he never was captured by the enemy? Would anyone even know who he is? So, failure is a positive thing?

Speaking of failure, you fail to bring anything of any substance to this forum. I can give you plenty of reasons NOT to vote for McCain. But, all you can come up with is Mussolini, Hitler and MJ? But, you don’t think our invasion of Iraq mirrors what the Third Reich was doing?

Bring some substance, or admit the REAL reason you don’t like Obama. McCain’s losing this battle because he, like you, has no substance to bring, AND doesn’t know the ‘facts on the ground’. Besides that, he’s completely changed his ideology to fit that of the hardcore radical right-wingers. So much for the ‘Maverick’ title, huh?

Can we once and for all stop using “elitist” as a negative word? First of all, it’s not being used correctly. The slur definition of “elitist” is someone who knows what the F*** he/she is doing and not afraid to let everyone else knows it. An “elitist” is something that rich Republicans are actually are. Republicans who only cares and caters to other important people who are rich and powerful. The best example is the lackadasical approach to Katrina. If there was a threat to some place like Martha Vineyard instead of New Orleans, you can bet that all the federal agencies will be there days before the disaster hit to evacuate the people and try to protect much of the property they can before the weather hit the area. These are the elitist we need to keep an eye out for and not vote them into office.

“Not acting like a Republican” is not something he`s done. It`s something he hasn`t done.
Which basically reflects his career. He hasn`t done anything except get elected. Thanks for making my point if that`s all you can come up with.
Dahhh!

“And can anyone please tell me what the hell this guy has ever done of real substance in his life to deserve this idol like adoration.”

Not act like a Republican.

Sorry Coach but I think you miss the point. Yes go to Iraq and Afganistan. You should at least see what`s going on before you start giving policy speeches about the war. But a Rock Star tour of Europe. Whats up with that? Audacity of Hope? Or Audacity of a Big Ego. I hear he`s going to give his nomination acceptance speech in Denver at a Sports Arena to 75000 adoring fans. There`s never been anything like it before. When I see politicians being treated cult like in front of huge,cheering crowds, it gives me chills and not the kind running up Chris Matthews leg when he hears Obama speak. It reminds me of others in the past who new how to excite the crowds, oh like umm Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Michael Jackson. This is America. We ain`t looking for a King. What ever happen to getting nominated in front of a few thousand party loyalist. Give your speech. They drop the balloons and it`s off to the general election. And can anyone please tell me what the hell this guy has ever done of real substance in his life to deserve this idol like adoration.

Aversa: You missed the point. Mike was saying the guy can’t win because he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t by the people on the right. In other words: They want him to go to Iraq to see the ‘facts on the ground’, then they call it a photo-op……

we’re not ashamed of our country we are embarrassed for our leaders and shocked at our apathy.

Mike in Liverpool, thanks for making the case for McCain. You said, I paraphrase, “Obama is leader of the Free World whether or not he becomes leader of the US”. Translate, Free World = Europe. I guess the US = Tyranny. There`s a sense by many that Obama is an elitist and like many on the left here, he`s embarrassed of his own country. If only we could be more like the Europeans. If my memory serves me, America played a big part in keeping the so called Free World,free. I`ll take Citizen of the US over Citizen of the World any day.

The guy can’t win. One minute he lacks foreign policy experience, the next he’s focussing too much attention abroad.

Obama already seems to be the leader of the free world. Whether or not he become’s leader of the United States remains to be seen.

Jed Clampett

First he’s against timetables, now that he perceives that it’s politically fashionable, McBush has ’shifted’ his position once again, agreeing that a 16 month timetable could be ‘a pretty good timetable’. Don’t call it a flip-flop,,,

Hanoi candidate being pupeteered again. Wanna guess who’s pulling the strings?

to loose…
so they can keep raping the people.
In the last eight years production and corporate salaries have skyrocketed while the rest of the workforce’s pay remains stagnant. They wish to continue that. Why else would they be making $20 mill a year or more? They hope for independent status to win an election.

PEOPLE, PLEASE CITE A REFERENCE AS TO OBAMA’S ‘FAULTS’. OR HIS ‘CLOWN’ISMS.

What, exactly, are his faults? Part of the same system is about the only thing that holds water. But, since he’s so young, or fresh, don’t we have to give him a chance to prove that he’s part of the same f-ed up system? Aren’t you assuming? If he’s got no experience, then how can he be lumped in with everybody else. It can’t be both sides of that argument. Either he’s experienced in this system, which would possibly make him one in the same. Or, he’s not experienced, which would, quite possibly, make him an agent of change.

I love the ‘both sides of the argument’ being thrown at Obama. First, he’s too young. He’s not worldly. He needs to go to Iraq and see the ‘facts on the ground’. Then, he goes on the world tour, and it’s just a photo-op? What is it, exactly, that you people want from him?

(Merkwurdigliebe)

so what does that tell you? Neither are qualified for the presidency…how our once great country get stuck with two duds…as I posted below: vote green, vote libertarian, vote populist…anything but these two clowns, voting for either one perpetuates the same system that’s getting us nowhere

the way things are going they might as well start running trained chimps in 2012

Oh, let’s be real for a minute. It’s obvious to just about everyone who isn’t a gushing Obama supporter that the media has been giving biased coverage in favor of Obama.

But, maybe it’s deserved a little.

He’s a likable guy and he does inspire hope for a better future. That’s why, I think, people like him so much. He obviously wasn’t the best choice for the Dems to put forward (and Hillary certainly wasn’t either), but he inspires hope in a turnaround of American govt. Maybe that has to be good enough for now…

Midman: An example of biased coverage would be nice. You claim biasness is the media, but don’t cite anything in particular. Are you sick of hearing McCain’s screwups? Do you, somehow, think that the media is covering up any Obama screwups? McCain blows it every single day, regarding to his foreign affairs rhetoric. I’d like to see an example of the media ‘covering’ for Obama, otherwise it’s just plain legend perpetrated by frustrated people, like yourself. Believe me, I’m not above chastising Obama. In fact, I disagreed with his FISA vote. I disagree with his statements to Berlin about terrorism. But, are those really ’screwups’ in the McCain fashion? The guy thinks Iran is training Al Qaida. The man thinks Iraq borders Pakistan. The man thinks Iraq was the first big challenge since 9/11. The man can’t tell the difference between Sunni and Shia. He doesn’t know Czechoslovakia broke up. If you don’t think these facts are worthy of scrutiny, I’m not sure what to tell you. But, I don’t hear Obama saying those things……

It certainly seems to me that the only people, worldwide, who DON’T like Obama are republicans, or republicans hiding in libertarian clothing.

Jed Clampett

I watched brian williams interview the senator from illinois either last night or the night before. If they had asked Bush the tough questions, worded in the same neospeak that gives them the signal to run with a slanderous theme, then perhaps we would not be in the mess we are in, we’d be working wholeheartedly on renewables and probably would already have our homes off the grid.
Now, it is McLame that gets the easy questions and a platform to say whatever he wants, including having gaffes edited out. Did you see the Katie Curic interview?
McCain is not getting as much coverage because everytime they do, he screws up worse. The only ones covering as much of McBush as they should is the Daily Show. If they covered McCain as much as Sen Obama, with the same intensity and inuendo, McCain would explode in a fit of rage and probably shed his human mask.

BTW- is he the Hanoi candidate? Seems he’s changed his mind so many times, it’s hard not to believe he’s not in some kind of mind control by some foreign power.

Somewhere In The Middle

My point, Coach, is that I would like some objectivity in journalism. Stevie Wonder could see that the mainstream media has given Obama virtually a free pass, making sure not to be critical in any way (save for the Rev. Wright flap). I don’t know if that is because they are as wrapped up as you in the belief that he is somehow the second coming, or if they are merely afraid of being labeled a racist for being critical of the black guy. McCain is far, far away from being the ideal candidate and lacks greatly the charisma and face that Obama has. But it does get tiresome seeing these supposed journalists falling all over themselves to jerk off Obama. His s@$t stinks just as bad as the rest of ours.

OBAMA UNITING AND PARADIGM SHIFTING IN THE AMERICAN CULTURAL WAR
Obama is politically uniting Blacks and Whites, Christians and Muslims, Kennedy Liberals and Reagan Conservatives, Europeans and Americans; the Podhoretz Neo-Cons and the Leiberman Neo-Libs are screaming the screams of damned, “Crucify him!”; and the World is singing, “God Bless America”.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

States do what they will or must in the global system of anarchy, as it has been and always will be…while the people are dragged along, via coercion or consent…you’re preaching to choir Jed…destrucion? Probably not. A whole lot worse place to live? definitely

that said, the rest of the world is just going to have to take who we choose and like it, regardless of who they want

Jed Clampett

Yea, they thought the US was a peaceful, considerate nation. Yet they’ve found it to be a den of thieves and usurpers. Wow, what a great distincition. You are on top of hated countries because of what your unbridled consumption and ignorance does to the rest of the world… starting with your moral and spiritual vacuuity that your youth tries to fill with drugs of all sorts. Cocaine, american invention and consumption has fed a criminal element that now threatens to take over much of latin america. American consumerism and corporate apathy are exploiting the populations of foreign countries to the extent of virtual slavery. Protection of oil industry profits by american politicians which stifle development and conservation have put the entire world at risk for destruction. Yet the american people keep watching the tube like a bunch of spectators. A ‘free’ society that is hypocritical soon implodes… it’s natures way.

Don’t forget, it’s opinion and popular support for that opinion that shakes the foundations to the core. Your kind of extremism engenders the very thing you say you wish to avoid… Hatred of your country by other nations and therefore reduced security and stability.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

It depends…Dems have their own vision of how to rule the world, and its strangely concurrent with the republican ethos…America is still on top, whatever the cost…a Dem or Repub in the office makes little difference, the Dems are just better at couching their warmongering under other guises…but then again, their sh*t doesnt stink, right?

you sure do seem to love projecting your hatred for the republican brand on me…I have no love for them either, but I dont play favorites with the otherside neither…

America certainly needs to rethink its global stance…but at the same time, the minute we decide our future based on the thoughts of others around the world is the minute we lose sovereignty…so as much as we should respect world opinion, remember its just that– opinion, and the world is very ofter wrong

Jed Clampett

Having the right person represent us will go a long way to gaining back the respect of the other nations that make up the world. This may prevent them from uniting against the US when they realize just what a hegemony it has become and how it’s people are too apathetic to control their political class, they have allowed their congress to be ruled by gangsters, why shouldn’t the other nations of the world act against it.

Why is it america thinks it can tell the world how they must think, how they must act, how they must run their economy when they don’t hold those values or ideals they try to push on others themselves? You hate it when Gore does it, but find it perfectly acceptable when it suits YOUR needs. Hypocrite republican.

Jed Clampett

American Tycoons helped them build it up in the first place because the american industrialist knew Hitler’s plans to grow his empire. In order to build his empire he needed materials that american corporations were more than willing to s_ell to him at a herfty profit. He was going to get rid of the riff-raff, which is what they wanted here as well. Whether it was done quickly through the chaos of war or slowly by the economic stranglehold of discrimination, the effects are the same(and it is still being attempted, with the result that they are actually creating more poor).

When germany started beating up on brittain and public opinion in the US started turning against Hitler, that’s when industrialists decided to stop supporting him. Much like the global climate issue, nothing is done out of good will, only when forced by public opinion or laws do they act for the benefit of the whole.
Examine america’s role in Japan’s war machine and you will also see a great assistance there, only when the US threatened to stop s_elling them oil and steel did the japanese attack their former business partner. Glad they did, otherwise, the world just might consist of three countries today, germany’s europe, japan’s asia and America’s continent. Fortunately the japanese were too foolish to not bite the hand that fed them. Either way, the industrialist won big. With their control of large amounts of capital they were well positioned for any eventual outcome. This is why you are seeing the shakiness of our economic system. They are repositioning before Bush does his little swansong pre-decoronation.

I’m not arguing against the reconstruction of europe. It’s interesting you would jump on that to dissemble the real point however… that even though DWM tries to paint Barak as a stalinist, facist, hitlerian, etc. he fails, as you do, to recognize the hand of your own uber-capitalist heroes that seem to be so contrary to this nation’s stated ideals of ‘justice, freedom, prosperity and equality of all’ in the conflicts being fostered around the world.

Merk, the Germans were moved enough to show up 200+ thousand en masse. How many people show up for McCain…???

Delta: You’re literally off your rocker. Instead of innuendo, why don’t you just state your intentions? You won’t vote for him, why????? Waiting…..

I’m still waiting for an actual gaffe by Obama, while recieving one on a daily basis by McCain. And most of those gaffes involve his alleged strength: foreign affairs.

Merk, you may be correct about the ineptitude of our two-party system. But, in my mind, the democrats haven’t had a chance to do anything in the last few decades because of republican intervention. One party actually compromises, while the other folds its arms and holds its breath until it gets its way, all the while impeding any kind of political and societal evolution. But, again, I guess that IS the definition of conservatism (reluctance for change).

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Jed– so do you argue against pumping money into Germany? Prior to the war, as with now, they were the leading economic powerhouse on the European continent. We pumped all that money into Germany to A) rebuild it as a stable economic bulwark against the Soviets, B) Prevent Germany from disintegrating into little fiefdoms due to economic collapse ala pre unification, C) We wanted a stable ally against Soviet economic/political incursion into Western Europe…and surprise it worked. Germany became twice the economic powerhouse it was pre WWII, and still leads the continent in GDP and industrial output, and kept a broken continent from lapsing into another Great Depression…the European Union was almost literally born on the back post WWII German industrialization, which spurred concurrent growth throughout the western half of the continent…so, it worked out no?

As for bin-Laden, I’m convinced the man has been dead for some time…and that the Bush administration has kept it secret for whatever reasons (scare tactics mostly)…get that vote out, bin-Laden is a’comin!

vote in the Dems? Sure, if you want to be bankrupt slaves of the Govt…vote Libertarian, vote Green, vote Populist…vote for anyone besides the clowns in the Republican and Democrat parties, because this country deserves so much better than what either party have to offer…what kind of a choice is it that we have to choose between big business slavery or big govt slavery?

but ok speech by Obama…Germans didnt seem too moved though, but then again, they dont vote

Jed Clampett

Seems to me alot of american industrialists had great admiration for hitler and his fascist right wing views. Ford and Prescott Bush being just a couple of them.
When Germany fell, there were alot of european refugees that came to america, an easy way to help fascist war criminals enter the US and hide here. Some scientist who participated in war crimes were actually given positions in some of the highest places in industry, becoming a great part of the space program and other key institutions.
Is it any wonder that today the same type of disease is permeating the United States of America?
The US considered evil acceptable as long as it satisfied their economic and political needs, morality and justice be damned.

Do you need any more evidence than the ungodly amounts of money that went to germany for reconstruction after the war, other countries received a fraction of that.
But now the same fascists that allowed Hitler to gain power and then start his global conflict are trying to paint the Democratic candidate as a Nazi… go figure.

How much evidence do you need that this political party has been corrupted through and through and now sends it’s agents in-mass to slander a candidate while at the same time ignoring Osama Bin-Laden, the real threat to global stability, while funding the pakistani security services that protect him and supply him with troops to the tune of $5Billion yearly.
Do you still wonder what he meant when he said you are either with us or against us? He wasn’t talking about the taliban, they suit his needs. He wasn’t talking about pakistan, they provide the plausible deniability for not going in to get UBL. He was talking about the american people… you are either with him or against his political party in their quest for complete domination.

Look at the current trip that Sen Obama was goaded into taking. He wanted to go to Landtuhl to visit wounded troops but was advised by military officials that it would be considered a political event. Instead of taking the photo-op, “willing to do anythign to get elected(as john mcCain puts it)”, he decides to forego the event. What does McCain do? he faults him for not taking the politically expedient route. So they are obviously trying to put him in catch-22’s where they can criticize him whatever he does, much like the way republicans ran the congress and now bottleneck it (see the current gasoline price relief legislation).
Is that the type of entity that the american people need in control of their nation? People who will fight tooth and nail against their country man, even to the point of slander orchestrated by an australian business tycoon, but ignore the true enemy should never be allowed in politics, much less to control the nations purse. We will end up bankrupt slaves if we allow the republicans to continue their power trip.

Yeah, Phuck it if the rest of the world hates us. Who needs them. We can survive on our own. We love being hated by the rest of the world…

Sad.

I watched it and I saw it.
Them Germans went crazy over Senator Obama.
Would someone tell me when the German Approval Rating elected American Leaders??
Would someone tell me when the popular opinion of Europe decided who became the next American President?
Anyone remember??
I do,,
Hitler was the next coming of Christ.
Stalin was the real thing..
And Mussolini was as good as sliced bread..

Well folks,, I’m not going to put too much stock into what those euro-pee-ons want,,
They have been very wrong before.

Obama is not going to be our next president.

Jed Clampett

Isn’t it funny how the McLames goaded Sen. Obama into taking the foreign trip just so they could chide him for being abroad? This is the type of clean campaign Grandpa Munster and his team promised? Wow, even Rove is probably astounded by the blatancy of the political pandering exhibited by the right wing campaign.
Hell, even Bob Novak showed his right winger side today when he struck a byciclist and then sped off. Typical neocon, won’t take responsability for his actions. And how did the cops not arrest him for leaving the scene of an accident, failing to render aid, etc etc. throwing the book at him the way they do poor people? Oh yea, they are mostly fascist right wingers themselves and probably a big consumer of the Vak’d poison. Notice how these creatures cover up for each other. Something must be done soon or were in serious trouble, this is way too much hubris to be healthy for the nation.

Boy, great post Midman. What’s your point? And, what exactly do you want them to cover regarding McLame? Everytime he steps in front of a camera he screws something up. Is that what you want? More coverage of him screwing up?

And, Shearwater…….Proverbs? Bible? Really?

But everyone said his problem was a lack of foreign policy experience. Remember?

Of course he understands the plight of the typical american, far more than McCain who said he’s not good on the economy, that he’s more foreign policy.

Wow, remember Obama unlike the other politicians is from the same place people who are being hurt by this economy are.

This is the guy doing community work in the inner city of Chicago!

Obama has incredible chutzpa to posture like JFK and Ronald Reagan, on an international venue. His rhetoric is as vacuous as his candidacy. The Bible says in Proverbs that a fool shouldn’t be like that. It is unseemly.

Somewhere In The Middle

That is incredible. Tim Dickinson just said something kind of, but not really negative about Obama. I bet it was hard to take off your kneepads for that one, huh?

Who’s Travis? That’s the name that popped up in my comment window. Weird.

But, Tim, were you just critical of Obama? Whoa!

I agree though. He should be focusing on the problems we’re facing here in the U.S. and not trying to fluff his globalist credentials…