So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage?

So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

CreativeDominant -> So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/23/2014 3:12:05 PM)
http://www.mrc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/images/2014/october/2006vs2014Chart.JPG And here's the article that goes with the graph. http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/tv-news-blacks-out-years-bad-election-news-democrats

DomKen -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/23/2014 3:34:39 PM)
Perhaps because the election is still 2 weeks away quack.

Aylee -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/23/2014 4:03:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Perhaps because the election is still 2 weeks away quack. Are you suggesting that we voted in October, eight years ago?

DomKen -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/23/2014 5:16:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Perhaps because the election is still 2 weeks away quack. Are you suggesting that we voted in October, eight years ago? I'm suggesting that MRC cooked the books. They straight up lied.

DesideriScuri -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/23/2014 5:57:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Perhaps because the election is still 2 weeks away quack. Are you suggesting that we voted in October, eight years ago? I'm suggesting that MRC cooked the books. They straight up lied. In 2006, we voted on November 7th, 18 days after the dates watched. In 2014, we'll be voting on November 4th, 15 days after the dates watched. Shouldn't there have been more ads since the election date is closer?

CreativeDominant -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/23/2014 6:26:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Perhaps because the election is still 2 weeks away quack. Are you suggesting that we voted in October, eight years ago? I'm suggesting that MRC cooked the books. They straight up lied. You did read the article right? Where they explained how the comparison was done, right? Can't stand the fact that once again, the water-carrying for this Prez by the MM is noted by someone?

Aylee -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/23/2014 8:15:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Perhaps because the election is still 2 weeks away quack. Are you suggesting that we voted in October, eight years ago? I'm suggesting that MRC cooked the books. They straight up lied. How does that follow from your comment that the election is 2 weeks away and CD is a quack?

DomKen -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/23/2014 8:44:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Perhaps because the election is still 2 weeks away quack. Are you suggesting that we voted in October, eight years ago? I'm suggesting that MRC cooked the books. They straight up lied. How does that follow from your comment that the election is 2 weeks away and CD is a quack? Do you know anything about the MRC?

Sanity -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/23/2014 8:49:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Can't stand the fact that once again, the water-carrying for this Prez by the MM is noted by someone? The brainwashing is so effective that certain victims can't get enough of it, and it becomes self perpetuating

Musicmystery -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/24/2014 5:05:05 AM)
I do wonder why the extreme cherry picking -- why exclude the 2010 midterms from the study? What happened in the Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan midterms? I.e., is this a coverage trend or a political bias? Seems the authors would be quick to include those if their theory held true.

CreativeDominant -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/24/2014 6:59:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I do wonder why the extreme cherry picking -- why exclude the 2010 midterms from the study? What happened in the Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan midterms? I.e., is this a coverage trend or a political bias? Seems the authors would be quick to include those if their theory held true. Not if the point of the article was...as the authors note...to examine the midterm coverage during the second term of Bush when things were not so rosy for the Prez and during the midterms occurring during Obama's second term when things aren't quite so rosy for this Prez.

mnottertail -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/24/2014 7:01:19 AM)
First of all, it is a nutsucker propaganda site, no credibility whatsoever. Second of all the WSJ poll: The poll of 1,172 registered voters – among them 484 likely voters – was conducted from Oct. 10-16. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.56 percentage points. For likely voters the margin increased to plus or minus 5.42 percentage points. at 49 vs 44 I will leave you fiscally responsible inumerate nutsuckers to do the math. It is still a tossup. And I doubt the upfront graph as well on number of stories. I mean if 'THE DEMOCRATS' are hiding something, it would seem that they are nearly as ineffectual as the nutsuckers, wouldn't it? They appear to be having extremely limited success.

Musicmystery -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/24/2014 7:04:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I do wonder why the extreme cherry picking -- why exclude the 2010 midterms from the study? What happened in the Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan midterms? I.e., is this a coverage trend or a political bias? Seems the authors would be quick to include those if their theory held true. Not if the point of the article was...as the authors note...to examine the midterm coverage during the second term of Bush when things were not so rosy for the Prez and during the midterms occurring during Obama's second term when things aren't quite so rosy for this Prez. All the more reason to be thorough and eliminate other variables. Unless, as Ron notes, the point was propaganda, not evidence.

Aylee -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/24/2014 7:04:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I do wonder why the extreme cherry picking -- why exclude the 2010 midterms from the study? What happened in the Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan midterms? I.e., is this a coverage trend or a political bias? Seems the authors would be quick to include those if their theory held true. From what I understood in the article, the 2010 midterm election was not included because they were using the midterm election from each of the second terms of office. So Bush I, would not be included since he only had one term. For Clinton and Regan, Fox news started in 1996 so Regan and Clinton would not fit into that either if they are comparing news sources to news sources.

mnottertail -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/24/2014 7:17:47 AM)
So, we are comparing two events 8 years apart, in the world and assuming some similarity based upon the mission: (with extremely suspect data) Since 1987, the Media Research Center has been the nation’s premier media watchdog. We don’t endorse politicians and we don’t lobby for legislation. MRC’s sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media. This makes the MRC’s work unique within the conservative movement. The Media Research Center’s unwavering commitment to neutralizing left-wing bias in the news media and popular culture has influenced how millions of Americans perceive so-called objective reporting. yadda yadda yadda...... and then: The Media Research Center is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions are tax-deductible to the maximum extent of the law. The MRC receives no government grants or contracts nor do we have an endowment. We raise our funds each year from individuals, foundations, and corporations. (which if I am understanding circular 78 is ZERO)

Musicmystery -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/24/2014 7:22:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I do wonder why the extreme cherry picking -- why exclude the 2010 midterms from the study? What happened in the Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan midterms? I.e., is this a coverage trend or a political bias? Seems the authors would be quick to include those if their theory held true. From what I understood in the article, the 2010 midterm election was not included because they were using the midterm election from each of the second terms of office. So Bush I, would not be included since he only had one term. For Clinton and Regan, Fox news started in 1996 so Regan and Clinton would not fit into that either if they are comparing news sources to news sources. But if the argument is burying bad news for Democrats, then they need to track times when that's true compared to times when it wasn't. A seven week sample eight years apart isn't going to establish that, as it allows multiple explanations -- whether coverage is down period, for example. It still comes back to cherry picking. If they really wanted to establish this, a longer story would bury the guilty media -- unless the authors weren't able to establish that with a more comprehensive study, or if they were simply too lazy, wanting only to appear to support the position rather than thoroughly establishing it.

Sanity -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/24/2014 8:51:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I do wonder why the extreme cherry picking -- why exclude the 2010 midterms from the study? What happened in the Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan midterms? I.e., is this a coverage trend or a political bias? Seems the authors would be quick to include those if their theory held true. Not if the point of the article was...as the authors note...to examine the midterm coverage during the second term of Bush when things were not so rosy for the Prez and during the midterms occurring during Obama's second term when things aren't quite so rosy for this Prez. How dare they compare apples to apples? Thats not how leftist propaganda is made...

cloudboy -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/24/2014 9:18:51 AM)
Nothing I'm reading and following is ignoring the midterms. Everyday its a story about EBOLA, ISIS, the failure to pass immigration reform, fear in the markets, Obama's unpopularity, etc. I just don't tag OBAMA as responsible for EBOLA, ISIS, and other general problems in the world. Republican obstructionism simply has the voter fed up with everyone in DC. As for TV news being lacking -- that's because its ratings driven and focused on entertainment value. I would give the Republicans their due if they earned any -- but they remain an awful alternative (tax cuts, lower regulations, restricting abortion, closing the borders, stalling on immigration, war-mongering, etc. Just look at the sorry state of Kansas.... who wants that spreading in DC?)

Musicmystery -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/24/2014 3:56:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I do wonder why the extreme cherry picking -- why exclude the 2010 midterms from the study? What happened in the Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan midterms? I.e., is this a coverage trend or a political bias? Seems the authors would be quick to include those if their theory held true. Not if the point of the article was...as the authors note...to examine the midterm coverage during the second term of Bush when things were not so rosy for the Prez and during the midterms occurring during Obama's second term when things aren't quite so rosy for this Prez. How dare they compare apples to apples? Thats not how leftist propaganda is made... Yeah, right . . . This apple is a granny smith, and this other apple is a granny smith, therefore all apples are granny smiths. Deep research there, sparky.

CreativeDominant -> RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? (10/25/2014 8:15:27 AM)
Of course, maybe part of the reason is...as the authors of the first article noted...is the fact that the "networks party" is having problems, thus leading to candidate problems. http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/17/politics/incumbency-problems/index.html?c=/specials/politics/2014-midterm-elections/index.html

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875