The President Obama Thread: 'March Madness' Redux Edition

[Marx]

Better at what? working beyond party lines? Are there examples....honestly I knew very little of him as a Senator.

No...I was saying that Obama was better at the 'I can be a uniter' campaign tactic than most.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If the media is so liberal why did they give Bush a free ride the months leading up to the Iraq War.

I remember station after station beating the same war drum. I knew then "the liberal media" was largely a myth.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If most media was liberal then every channel would be like NPR and MSNBC. That's clearly not the case.

 

[chaseter]

HAHAHA. I can see all the way back to 2007 and 2008 when the mainstream conservative media was bashing Obama and clamoring over McCain and Palin.

 

[chaseter]

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

 

[Youk]

So ONE network means the entire media has a conservative bias?

not my point, but the idea that the mainstream media is liberal biased is extremely overblown. conservatives love to use the media as a boogieman because they dare to call them out on their ********.

 

[chaseter]

See my above link.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

If the media is so liberal why did they give Bush a free ride the months leading up to the Iraq War.

I remember station after station beating the same war drum. I knew then "the liberal media" was largely a myth.

Ever hear of 9/11?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Ever hear of 9/11?

What does that have to do with the Iraq War?

 

[chaseter]

Newspapers all over this country had an Iraq death toll at the bottom of their paper and when Obama got elected those went away. Why?

 

[Spidey-Bat]

It was one of the reasons why there was public support for it early on. It doesn't disprove the existence of political bias in the media.

 

[DACrowe]

I hold him to the standard that his campaign set. I hold him to the standard of the office that HE ASKED FOR. I held Bush to the same standard, I held Clinton to the same standard. Get over it.

Yes and no. You hold him to the standard some in the media labeled him as (some sarcastically like Kristol and some stupidly like Chris Matthews).

His campaign also said that he would get a health care law (mind you his had a public option then to be fair), regulate Wall Street banks, wind down the war in Iraq, escalate the war in Afghanistan, end torture, repair our image in the world, reduce the role of banks in student loans, create competition among states for federal funding of public education, and pump money into an economy in freefall.

Whether these were good policies or not is a fair question, but he ran on them and those are promises he actually delivered on. What he hasn't delivered on is a comprehensive energy/environmental reform package, repealing DADT, closing Gitmo, ending Bush tax cuts for the rich, etc.

Those are places he has fallen short. In some of them I understand why (Bush tax cuts) in others (energy reform) I'm utterly confused and disappointed by.

But that's not what you usually talk about. You point out that people that are not the president have compared him to a God-like figure. Your portrait example was not done by his campaign, but by an artist who did it on his own and has since turned on Obama due him not being liberal enough. You point out that a man others worshipped is not a god, but mortal and you act like you made a revelatory point on that every day. You didn't. You stated the obvious and are continuing to ignore the actual problem solving in government, because you have an axe to grind on Obama ever since he beat your once-beloved candidate John Edwards.

Get over it.

 

[Youk]

See my above link.

#1 - how many and which media sources did they use?
#2 - did they include opinion journalism, which many mistake for hard news?
#3 - are they considering talk radio, blogs, websites and non-news periodicals as sources of legitimate mainstream news?
#4 - what's the current status, rather than 5-15 years ago?
#5 - are we absolutely sure there's no bias in this study?

Newspapers all over this country had an Iraq death toll at the bottom of their paper and when Obama got elected those went away. Why?

what's the exact date that each newspaper stopped running those?

 

[chaseter]

#1 - how many and which media sources did they use?
#2 - did they include opinion journalism, which many mistake for hard news?
#3 - are they considering talk radio, blogs, websites and non-news periodicals as sources of legitimate mainstream news?
#4 - what's the current status, rather than 5-15 years ago?
#5 - are we absolutely sure there's no bias in this study?

That study was done 5 years ago.

Of course you are going to refuse to believe a UCLA study. Okay. I wonder who knows more: Youk saying the media is biased to the right or a UCLA study saying it is biased to the left? Oh the quandary.

what's the exact date that each newspaper stopped running those?

I have no idea. I don't save every single paper. They were doing it while Bush was President and when Obama gets elected I notice that it isn't there anymore. We are still at war. The only thing that has changed is who sits in the office seat.

 

[Marx]

If the media is so liberal why did they give Bush a free ride the months leading up to the Iraq War.

I remember station after station beating the same war drum. I knew then "the liberal media" was largely a myth.

Ever hear of 9/11?

What does that have to do with the Iraq War?

Bush wasn't really questioned in the lead up because anyone who 'dared to question him' was blacklisted and labelled unpatriotic.

 

[bell110]

HAHAHA. I can see all the way back to 2007 and 2008 when the mainstream conservative media was bashing Obama and clamoring over McCain and Palin.

Exactly.

See my above link.

It really just proves that the conservatives claims of liberal media bias is overblown.

 

[bell110]

Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced

Despite popular accounts, researchers found that Barack Obama got more negative press coverage than John McCain did in the early summer


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election&page=2

 

[bell110]

That study was done 5 years ago.

Of course you are going to refuse to believe a UCLA study. Okay. I wonder who knows more: Youk saying the media is biased to the right or a UCLA study saying it is biased to the left? Oh the quandary.



I have no idea. I don't save every single paper. They were doing it while Bush was President and when Obama gets elected I notice that it isn't there anymore. We are still at war. The only thing that has changed is who sits in the office seat.

Ok, I hate to be post happy, but I also found this:

Former fellows at conservative think tanks issued flawed UCLA-led study on media's "liberal bias"

http://mediamatters.org/research/200512220003

And here is an excerpt:

Study riddled with flaws
In "A Measure of Media Bias" (pdf), Groseclose and Milyo attempted to "measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets" based on the frequency with which various think tanks and advocacy organizations were cited approvingly by the media and by members of Congress over a 10-year period. In order to assess media "bias," Groseclose and Milyo assembled the ideological scores given to members of Congress by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action; examined the floor speeches of selected members to catalog which think tanks and policy organizations were cited by those members; used those citations as the basis for an ideological score assigned to each think tank (organizations cited by liberal members were scored as more liberal, whereas organizations cited by conservative members were scored as more conservative); then performed a content analysis of newspapers and TV programs to catalog which think tanks and policy organizations were quoted. If a news organization quoted a think tank mentioned by conservative members of Congress, then it was said to have a conservative "bias." As Groseclose and Milyo put it:

As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, and suppose that the New York Times cited the first think tank twice as often as the second. Our method asks: What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.
​

In other words, the study rests on a presumption that can only be described as bizarre: If a member of Congress cites a think tank approvingly, and if that think tank is also cited by a news organization, then the news organization has a "bias" making it an ideological mirror of the member of Congress who cited the think tank. This, as Groseclose and Milyo define it, is what constitutes "media bias."
When Carlson asked him to explain the study, Milyo misrepresented his own study. Milyo noted that the study did not look at editorials, then said, "Of course, but that's how bias sneaks into news coverage. The reporter doesn't say, 'I think this.' He says, 'According to our expert, say, Barbra Streisand, this is true.' Right? It's the choice of the experts that allows the opinion to get in." But Milyo's example of Streisand -- as though a news organization would actually cite her as an "expert" -- is flawed, considering that the study examined only mentions of think tanks and advocacy organizations (not of individual experts). Milyo ended his interview by telling Carlson, "My wife's a big fan [of Carlson]."

 

[Kelly]

If the media is so liberal why did they give Bush a free ride the months leading up to the Iraq War.

I remember station after station beating the same war drum. I knew then "the liberal media" was largely a myth.

The first part is a good question, and I agree....they did. I think it was because

1. There had been soooooo much coverage of the Florida debacle that the people, their viewers, the ones that buy the products on the commercials that pay for their time, were tired of anything political....

2. Then 9/11 happened, and that was a time to have the country come together, not be pulled apart....

3. Once we have actual proof that the intel was flawed that was used....that honeymoon time was over....

IMO...

If most media was liberal then every channel would be like NPR and MSNBC. That's clearly not the case.

I would not put NPR in the same category as MSNBC....up until the George Soros paying for reporters to be hired, and the Juan Williams thing, they were my #1 news source. Until they realize what they did was wrong, and showed an extreme bias that I had not seen before, they will not get my time or money....but I still believe them to be a fairly good news source. As far as MSNBC, like Fox they have their positives and negatives...

 

[StorminNorman]

PEW Research pretty much destroys the Fox complaints:

PEW's Research for Journalism Excellence:

Fox News had most balanced coverage of 2008 Election

PEW Research

Fox News has most ideologically diverse audience

 

[bell110]

PEW Research pretty much destroys the Fox complaints:

PEW's Research for Journalism Excellence:

Fox News had most balanced coverage of 2008 Election

PEW Research

Fox News has most ideologically diverse audience

That really doesn't destroy anything.

Also, Fox having a more ideologically diverse audience is pretty much common sense. That's why they get higher rating. Liberals are more open-minded and will watch both sides of the story. Conservatives will only watch conservative news.

Also, I like this:

Audience Segment: Traditionalists​

Who they are​

​

​

​

: ​

46% of the public. Older, less -
educated and less affluent.​

What they do​

​

​

​

:​

•​

​

​

​

Heavy reliance on TV news - morning,
daytime, evening and at night.​

•​

​

​

​

Most have a computer, but few get news
online on a typical day.​

• ​

​

​

​

Understand news better by seeing
pictures, rather than reading or hearing.​

•​

​

​

​

Strong interest in the weather; relatively​

little interest in science and tech news.

Guess that explains why Beck is doing so well.

 

[chaseter]

Liberals are more open minded to conservative values but Conservatives are not open minded to liberal values? Care to provide me some studies to back that up or is that just personal opinion?

 

[chaseter]

Ok, I hate to be post happy, but I also found this:

Former fellows at conservative think tanks issued flawed UCLA-led study on media's "liberal bias"

http://mediamatters.org/research/200512220003

And here is an excerpt:

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA x 1000000

Media matter, what a wonderful site to get non biased information from. Here is Media matter's primary objective: "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

HAHAHAHAHA. Hey guess what, I just went over to foxnews.com and they said the study was right.


HAHAHAAHHAHA posting information from a liberal think tank as wholly factual journalism.

 

[Youk]

That study was done 5 years ago.

Of course you are going to refuse to believe a UCLA study. Okay. I wonder who knows more: Youk saying the media is biased to the right or a UCLA study saying it is biased to the left? Oh the quandary.

yes, the study was done 5 years ago, but if you actually read the article they state that they went back and looked at the media from the previous 10 years. 5 + 10 = 15.

did i say i refuse to believe them? i just asked for some qualifiers that weren't listed in the article, that i could see anyway. are you just going to make ad hominem attacks without addressing my legitimate questions?

I have no idea. I don't save every single paper. They were doing it while Bush was President and when Obama gets elected I notice that it isn't there anymore. We are still at war. The only thing that has changed is who sits in the office seat.

ok, but you said the change happened as soon as obama entered office. can you actually prove that or are you just taking a cheap, lazy jab at the supposedly liberal biased media? which newspapers are you referring to, by the way?

 

[chaseter]

It was there when Bush was in office, it is not there and Obama is in office. What else has changed?