Rogue Nine Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Heh, however while they may be nonpartisan and I use the term loosely, a lot of these 'bringing it on himself' simply isn't true. http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html Look at the talking points memo for 10/30, it gives a better breakdown as to what I'm referring to. Media Overall: 57% of McCain stories were Negative 29% of Obama stories were Negative Newspaper Coverage: 69% of McCain stories were Negative 28% of Obama stories were Negative NBC 54% of McCain stories were Negative 21% of Obama stories were Negative MSNBC 73% of McCain stories were Negative 14% of Obama stories were Negative Fox News 40% of McCain stories were Negative 40% of Obama stories were Negative He got the numbers from Pew Research How do all these numbers prove McCain is not 'bringing it on himself'? They say nothing about the content of the articles, which is what would show that he's indeed 'bringing it on himself'. It's a difference between the data and someone analyzing said data, they are more fair than the other media outlets, but they should just stick with the numbers. Why, because their analysis gives an unfavorable view of McCain? Is that why they should just 'stick to the numbers'? And they did the research, so why shouldn't they be allowed to comment on their own work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 How do all these numbers prove McCain is not 'bringing it on himself'? They say nothing about the content of the articles, which is what would show that he's indeed 'bringing it on himself'. And how do you prove that he is? Why, because their analysis gives an unfavorable view of McCain? Is that why they should just 'stick to the numbers'? Actually, it's the fact the media is sitting on quite a few stories about Obama. And they did the research, so why shouldn't they be allowed to comment on their own work? Then talk about the numbers and what they sampled, you don't give a subjective analysis like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 And how do you prove that he is? For McCain, coverage began positively, but turned sharply negative with McCain's reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bold steps in an effort to reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened. Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obama's character did hurt Obama's media coverage, but McCain's was even more negative. Actually, it's the fact the media is sitting on quite a few stories about Obama. Thanks for completely ignoring my question to instead push more irrelevant Obama smears. Then talk about the numbers and what they sampled, you don't give a subjective analysis like that. The data do not provide conclusive answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Garfield, you're not helping your case. You're actually kind of shooting yourself in the foot. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone present that most of the major news sources are biased, one way or another. It seems like the logical thing to do is to watch a Conservative-leaning one, and then a Liberal-leaning one. Or Vice Versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 http://journalism.org/node/13436 It seems to me Fox News did a far better job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.