What election? With Democrats losing huge, Network News gives up on covering midterm elections

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
290
San Diego, CA
Move on, folks, nothing to see here.

That appears to be the attitude of the mainstream liberal press, toward polls, predictions, and coverage of the upcoming midterm elections.

Could it have anything to do with the likelihood of huge Democrat losses?

Back during an election where Republicans seemed likely to win big, the Network News was all over it, closely examining each race, giving blow-by-blow (no Clinton reference intended) accounts of each candidate's changing fortunes.

But now? Yawn. Nothing important happening.

-----------------------------------------------------

What election Network news gives up on covering midterms Hot Air

What election? Network news gives up on covering midterms

posted at 8:01 pm on October 22, 2014 by Noah Rothman

It is probably safe to assume that you have been following the midterm elections closely. You decided to click on this link, which would indicate that you have at least a passing interest in the coming national vote in which Americans will determine which party controls the upper chamber of Congress for the remainder of the Obama presidency. If, however, you have been closely following the coverage of the coming midterms, you might have noticed that network news outlets do not appear to share your enthusiasm. You’re not imagining things.

According to an exhaustive study performed by Media Research Center analysts, between September 1 and October 20, the three major broadcast networks only bothered to mention the fact that there is a critical election coming up only 25 times. Of those mentions, only 16 of them were in the context of packaged report.

By contrast, in the same period in 2006, when Democrats were believed to be likely to take control of both the House and Senate, the three major networks mentioned the coming midterms 159 times with 91 of those mentions broadcast as part of detailed reports.

2006-2014.jpg


“Amazingly, since September 1 ABC’s newly-renamed World News Tonight has yet to feature a single mention of this year’s campaign, let alone a full story, the MRC report revealed. “In contrast, eight years ago ABC’s World News aired 36 stories that discussed that year’s midterm campaign, including a weekly Thursday night feature that then-anchor Charlie Gibson promised would look at the ‘critical races.’”

“CBS and NBC have scarcely been more comprehensive,” the expose continued. “In 2006, CBS aired a total of 58 evening news stories that discussed the campaign, while NBC Nightly News aired 65 stories. This year, those numbers have fallen to just 14 and 11 as of October 20, declines of 76% and 83%, respectively.”
 
If a Republican starts stompinng Hillary in the polls in the next few years, will the same media start backing away and not covering the Presidential election, too?
 
Huge? Probably 52 in the Senate, possibly 54. That is not huge, and can be filibustered into obscurity.

And with a veto from O, it means little. Then in 2016, when Demographics have made the GOP gerrymandering of little affect, the table will turn 180 degrees. We are living in historic times. First we see the first Black President and then we see the first Woman President. WOW!
 
Move on, folks, nothing to see here.

That appears to be the attitude of the mainstream liberal press, toward polls, predictions, and coverage of the upcoming midterm elections.

Could it have anything to do with the likelihood of huge Democrat losses?

Back during an election where Republicans seemed likely to win big, the Network News was all over it, closely examining each race, giving blow-by-blow (no Clinton reference intended) accounts of each candidate's changing fortunes.

But now? Yawn. Nothing important happening.

-----------------------------------------------------

What election Network news gives up on covering midterms Hot Air

What election? Network news gives up on covering midterms

posted at 8:01 pm on October 22, 2014 by Noah Rothman

It is probably safe to assume that you have been following the midterm elections closely. You decided to click on this link, which would indicate that you have at least a passing interest in the coming national vote in which Americans will determine which party controls the upper chamber of Congress for the remainder of the Obama presidency. If, however, you have been closely following the coverage of the coming midterms, you might have noticed that network news outlets do not appear to share your enthusiasm. You’re not imagining things.

According to an exhaustive study performed by Media Research Center analysts, between September 1 and October 20, the three major broadcast networks only bothered to mention the fact that there is a critical election coming up only 25 times. Of those mentions, only 16 of them were in the context of packaged report.

By contrast, in the same period in 2006, when Democrats were believed to be likely to take control of both the House and Senate, the three major networks mentioned the coming midterms 159 times with 91 of those mentions broadcast as part of detailed reports.

2006-2014.jpg


“Amazingly, since September 1 ABC’s newly-renamed World News Tonight has yet to feature a single mention of this year’s campaign, let alone a full story, the MRC report revealed. “In contrast, eight years ago ABC’s World News aired 36 stories that discussed that year’s midterm campaign, including a weekly Thursday night feature that then-anchor Charlie Gibson promised would look at the ‘critical races.’”

“CBS and NBC have scarcely been more comprehensive,” the expose continued. “In 2006, CBS aired a total of 58 evening news stories that discussed the campaign, while NBC Nightly News aired 65 stories. This year, those numbers have fallen to just 14 and 11 as of October 20, declines of 76% and 83%, respectively.”

"Everybody's always picking on me...." :boohoo:
 
Huge? Probably 52 in the Senate, possibly 54. That is not huge, and can be filibustered into obscurity.

And with a veto from O, it means little. Then in 2016, when Demographics have made the GOP gerrymandering of little affect, the table will turn 180 degrees. We are living in historic times. First we see the first Black President and then we see the first Woman President. WOW!

1106514-cool_story_bro_super.jpg
 
Huge? Probably 52 in the Senate, possibly 54. That is not huge, and can be filibustered into obscurity.
Didn't harry reid, in his infinite wisdom, make some changes in the senate that eliminates the possibility of a filibuster?
 
The network news people likely put the Midterms into the Sunday Morning programming. The local network news people likely put the Midterms into the morning and nightly newscasts, six or more times per day.

Then there are the ads. Even in California, Jerry Brown has an ad, about two ballot propositions. The Republican candidate for governor showing a drowning kid, a victim of California teachers and schools.

Presumably the California Republicans plan to hang them.

Little kids will be turning out in droves, just like in the Red states(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many young braves leap to backs of wild ponies, letting wind flow through. . .where body hair is located(?)!)
 
Huge? Probably 52 in the Senate, possibly 54. That is not huge, and can be filibustered into obscurity.

And with a veto from O, it means little. Then in 2016, when Demographics have made the GOP gerrymandering of little affect, the table will turn 180 degrees. We are living in historic times. First we see the first Black President and then we see the first Woman President. WOW!







It'll take more than a couple of years for the progressives to breed the cons out of existence. And even then the government of this country was created to defend the rights of the minority.
 
The network news people likely put the Midterms into the Sunday Morning programming. The local network news people likely put the Midterms into the morning and nightly newscasts, six or more times per day.

Then there are the ads. Even in California, Jerry Brown has an ad, about two ballot propositions. The Republican candidate for governor showing a drowning kid, a victim of California teachers and schools.

Presumably the California Republicans plan to hang them.

Little kids will be turning out in droves, just like in the Red states(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many young braves leap to backs of wild ponies, letting wind flow through. . .where body hair is located(?)!)
How does that explain the dramatic difference in the network nightly coverage between the 2006 and the 2014 midterm elections?
 
Huge? Probably 52 in the Senate, possibly 54. That is not huge, and can be filibustered into obscurity.

And with a veto from O, it means little. Then in 2016, when Demographics have made the GOP gerrymandering of little affect, the table will turn 180 degrees. We are living in historic times. First we see the first Black President and then we see the first Woman President. WOW!
That's old hat. We are post racial and post gender.

We need a transgender dwarf. It's time

Si si puede!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Huge? Probably 52 in the Senate, possibly 54. That is not huge, and can be filibustered into obscurity.
Filibustered!!!! Surely you know that in anticipation of a permanent democrat majority Harry Reid changed the rules. The nuclear option, remember? There's no more filibuster.

You ain't so bright are you?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/11/filibuster_faq_why_did_democrats_go_nuclear_today_your_senate_questions.html

So Democrats killed all non-talking filibusters?
In a word: No. In a few more: The change ends the filibustering only of most executive branch and judicial nominations through the second, more common filibustering tactic.
More importantly, it does not change the equation for big-ticket votes like Supreme Court nominations or actual legislation, both of which will still need 60 votes to overcome a potential filibuster on their way to passage or confirmation. If Senate Democrats wanted to bring up a climate or immigration bill for a vote tomorrow, they’d still need 60 votes to do it. The same goes for when there’s the next opening on the high court.

That doesn’t sound nearly as Senate-shaking. How big of a deal is this really?
It depends where you’re sitting. Taken in a vacuum, many Americans might be more surprised to learn the status quo: that one of the two congressional chambers doesn’t actually operate exclusively under majority rule. That said, the change is certainly a big one for an institution that prides itself both on occasionally head-scratching traditions and in providing outsize power to the minority party (as opposed to in the House, where a simple majority carries the day).
 

Forum List

Back
Top