Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
So...what explains the difference in the amount of cove... - 10/23/2014 3:12:05 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline 		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
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/23/2014 3:34:39 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		Perhaps because the election is still 2 weeks away quack.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/23/2014 4:03:26 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Perhaps because the election is still 2 weeks away quack.



Are you suggesting that we voted in October, eight years ago?

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/23/2014 5:16:53 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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 reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/23/2014 5:57:08 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/23/2014 6:26:02 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/23/2014 8:15:02 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/23/2014 8:44:16 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/23/2014 8:49:39 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/24/2014 5:05:05 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/24/2014 6:59:25 AM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/24/2014 7:01:19 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/24/2014 7:04:13 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/24/2014 7:04:59 AM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/24/2014 7:17:47 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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)

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 10/24/2014 7:21:37 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/24/2014 7:22:55 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/24/2014 8:51:30 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
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...

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/24/2014 9:18:51 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
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?)


(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/24/2014 3:56:36 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: So...what explains the difference in the amount of ... - 10/25/2014 8:15:27 AM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline 		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

< Message edited by CreativeDominant -- 10/25/2014 8:39:12 AM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> So...what explains the difference in the amount of coverage? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.188