Liberal Bias...Bias? The media isn't on Obama's side...

[JerichoHill]

But that was not the only thing. There was the campaign finance reform, the Israel-Palestinian policy, and a myriad of stuff where he did a 180 degree turn on right after he won the nomination. Get those data points in too.

There is also the tendency for the media to want to take down the front-runner when that front-runner's story gets old.

Keep flinging excuses up on the wall. The facts speak for themselves. I thought this was a very interesting result. I don't care if the media turned on Obama. All I care is to put out this research which suggests that the CW of the media appartuses being for Obama is completely mistaken.

 

[MobBoss]

The ops premise is fairly laughable....I mean even the media is discussing its own love affair with Obama lately.......

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Regarding the perceived "switch," there's the Clinton factor. The media do not like the Clintons, and when Obama was running against Clinton, he was going to be the beneficiary. Even the Obama camp agrees that the media were unfair to Hillary.

Another interesting note is that so much of the reporting for both candidates is "negative."

Cleo

 

[JerichoHill]

The ops premise is fairly laughable....I mean even the media is discussing its own love affair with Obama lately.......

Umm, so the GMU center which the right-wing press (Fox) loves to quote is all of a sudden laughable when it presents evidence that is contrary to right-wing held opinion?

I'm sorry. I'm no left-wing party hack. Neither is GMU, one of the very few universities that cannot have that liberal label stuck to it.

But thank's for contributing very little.

Cleo, I'm glad someone saw that.

 

[Gogf]

Only 28% of statements about Obama being positive definitely seems to be contrary to my experience, but I'm not going to argue with the statistics.

 

[downtown]

Another interesting note is that so much of the reporting for both candidates is "negative."

Cleo

Yeah, thats the first thing that stuck out to me as well. Conflict is what sells ad space I guess. In the 4 Presidential elections I've followed, I really can't remember anybody getting much of a free ride. Clinton and Bush (with the exception of the lead-up to the Iraq war) were both pretty much hammered.

 

[Gogf]

I think Lou Dobbs predicted way back that Obama was going to win, and that's why he's being so hostile. It cements his 'anti-establishment reporting' schtick.

Lou Dobbs is just awful.

 

[downtown]

Only 28% of statements about Obama being positive definitely seems to be contrary to my experience, but I'm not going to argue with the statistics.

I think this is a good political example of what American Sportswriter Bill Simmons called "The Ben Wallace Principle"

For those who don't know, Ben Wallace is an American basketball player. He was the center for the Detroit Pistons in the early 2000's, when the team was at their peak. Writer after writer raved about how underrated Ben Wallace was....how he was a great defender, how intimidating he was, how he did all sorts of little things that never showed up on stat sheets, etc etc.

These few facts were repeated and repeated over and over again, until Wallace became completely overrated. The Chicago Bulls paid him an huuuuuge contract, and watched in horror as Ben continued to be one of the worst offensive players in NBA History.

I feel like the media-"Obamamania" is the same way. Obama was a new and interesting story, and he's certainly had *more* press coverage than McCain...but I think conservatives have oversold their "press bias" story to Ben Wallace-like levels.

 

[Kraznaya]

I think this is a good political example of what American Sportswriter Bill Simmons called "The Ben Wallace Principle"

For those who don't know, Ben Wallace is an American basketball player. He was the center for the Detroit Pistons in the early 2000's, when the team was at their peak. Writer after writer raved about how underrated Ben Wallace was....how he was a great defender, how intimidating he was, how he did all sorts of little things that never showed up on stat sheets, etc etc.

These few facts were repeated and repeated over and over again, until Wallace became completely overrated. The Chicago Bulls paid him an huuuuuge contract, and watched in horror as Ben continued to be one of the worst offensive players in NBA History.

I feel like the media-"Obamamania" is the same way. Obama was a new and interesting story, and he's certainly had *more* press coverage than McCain...but I think conservatives have oversold their "press bias" story to Ben Wallace-like levels.

This is CFC OT dt, you're going to scare everyone away with a sports reference.

 

[skadistic]

Wow 6 whole weeks.

The same 6 weeks where Obama has gone and reversed his positions on many things from a liberal sway to get the primary to a centrist sway to get the general. Talk about cherry picking. Its easy to find negative coverage by liberal media when the liberal candidate is being less liberal then he was before those 6 weeks. Imagine that, liberals getting miffed and reporting on it when their liberal candidate turns out to be less liberal and just more of the same.

Piss of the liberals and the liberals will reflect that in their reporting even if you are the liberal. I just don't understand how they could do that.......

 

[downtown]

This is CFC OT dt, you're going to scare everyone away with a sports reference.

But it fit perfectly and you know it.

 

[Zelig]

Only 28% of statements about Obama being positive definitely seems to be contrary to my experience, but I'm not going to argue with the statistics.

To be exact, it's 28% of opinionated statements which are positive, the majority of statements are neutral.

 

[North King]

Can we get an actual link to the study? I'd like to know the criteria for positive and negative statements, how the networks were sampled, etc.

 

[JerichoHill]

Can we get an actual link to the study? I'd like to know the criteria for positive and negative statements, how the networks were sampled, etc.

Should be linked in the LA Times Article

Wow 6 whole weeks.
Talk about cherry picking

Yes, GMU's center was so bad at cherry-picking they analyzed the ENTIRE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

I actually find skadistic's reasoning quite impressive. If the media report negatively about Republicans, it's because they're liberal and don't like Republicans, who aren't liberal. But if the media report negatively about Democrats, it's because they're liberal and don't like Democrats, who aren't liberal.

Cleo

 

[Bill3000]

The media has a well known media bias. It's biased towards the media.

 

[skadistic]

Yes, GMU's center was so bad at cherry-picking they analyzed the ENTIRE GENERAL ELECTION PERIOD.

And what about before the general election? Before Obama showed us that hope and change meant more of the same? You know before he started changing his positions away from the liberal ones he used to get the presumed nomination to ones that were less liberal and more centrist?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Bill3000,

Exactly. The media's bias is not "liberal" or "conservative," so much as it's "narcissistic."

Cleo

 

[skadistic]

I actually find skadistic's reasoning quite impressive. If the media report negatively about Republicans, it's because they're liberal and don't like Republicans, who aren't liberal. But if the media report negatively about Democrats, it's because they're liberal and don't like Democrats, who aren't liberal.

Cleo

Add "enough" to the end of that statement are you got it right.

 

[Trajan12]

The media has a well known media bias. It's biased towards the media.

/Thread

The media doesn't care whether you're liberal or conservative, they care whether they stand to make gains by bashing you or praising you and they act accordingly.