So much for "liberal" media bias!

[Stephanie]

So much for "liberal" media bias!

Mr Romney is a liberal.
Next.

He is opposed to gay marriage. Liberals are not opposed to gay marriage.

Well I'm sure that is the TOP priority on the minds of the people today with the economy

 

[chikenwing]

LOl, this has ALREADY been posted..

awww, poor thing...they ran a few negative things about Obama...

so that means to the op, there is no MEDIA BIAS...they just didn't want to continue to look like the kiss asses they had been for Obama before the Republican primaries..

Let me dumb it down for you, Stephie: neocons and their teabagger cousins have been wailing for YEARS that there is a patented "liberal" bias in our main stream media. THEY MAINTAIN THIS TO THIS DAY.

IF that is indeed the case, then the FACTS related in the OP should not exist!

Yet they do.

so yes, there is a media bias...but it's AGAINST Obama.

Got it now, sweetpea? Or are you going to blow smoke and remain insipidly stubborn in your rhetoric?

Bwaaaaa hahahahahahah

 

[taichiliberal]

You ignore the 4 "related content" articles in your link. (all positive about Mr Obama and contrary to your OP opinion).
Your blind eye, not mine.
Carry on.

Yep, Alan is done folks. He can't argue against the FACTS in the OP logically and factually, so instead he tries to shift the conversation to a moot point of links.

I read ALL sources of information offered, therefore I can determine who is right or wrong. Alan can't.

No sense in further acknowledging neocon/teabagger cranks like Alan with his limited debating capabilities. He's done.

getting 'the last word in here' isn't as easy as what you are used to.

WTF are YOU talking about? What's the point in trying to engage in a debate with someone who REFUSES to deal with FACTS that he doesn't agree with? The chronology of the posts shows the path Alan chose...no sense in placating him further. I don't waste time on cranks or even scrolling past their silliness beyond a certain point.

Now, if people want to IA me, fine. Life will go on....but they can't erase the past posts, so any lies they tell will be exposed.

 

[alan1]

So much for "liberal" media bias!

Mr Romney is a liberal.
Next.

He is opposed to gay marriage. Liberals are not opposed to gay marriage.

Who knew, Mr Obama is not a liberal.

I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

Proof,

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJhQBZ1La0w]Obama @ Saddleback Church -Defines Marriage - YouTube[/ame]

 

[taichiliberal]

OK got it with a couple of links.

Here's a brief explanation. Links to follow quote:

But "the press" hasn't been tougher on Obama than the Republicans. PEJ's "good press/bad press" statistic mixes reports of the campaign horse race (who's ahead, who's behind) with judgmental coverage of a candidate's background, issue positions, etc.

And, according to PEJ's own statistics, the vast majority of the reports they examined (they peg it at 64%) are about campaign strategy.

What this all means is that the GOP candidates got better "good press" scores because they each won primaries this year.

This is obvious when you look at the report's explanation of how Romney, Santorum and Gingrich each fared with "the press" (I'm stripping out the statistics, because they are a meaningless distraction):

[Romney] enjoyed one week of clearly positive coverage... in the week following his solid, if widely expected win in New Hampshire on Jan. 10. But that media bounce was short lived. The week of his loss on Jan. 21 to Newt Gingrich in South Carolina, negative coverage of Romney... outstripped positive....

Santorum’s Iowa victory on Jan. 3 also produced a burst of positive coverage for him....But during the week of his third-place finish in South Carolina on Jan. 21, the tone of Santorum’s coverage dropped markedly....

Gingrich only enjoyed a single week in which positive coverage about him significantly outweighed negative, the week he won the South Carolina primary.

NOW HERE IS THE KEY...

In other words, PEJ is not actually tracking how the press -- journalists, reporters, commentators, etc. -- are evaluating, ranking, spinning, etc., the campaign.

Their sample is so heavy with redundant Web posting of the same horse race results that it completely masks the spin that journalists impart to the coverage.



'Data Doesn't Lie' Proclaims WashPost's Cillizza As He Peddles Faulty Study Saying Obama Getting Unfavorable Media Treatment | NewsBusters.org

And check out this link as well. This is for more flaws in PEJ's methodology. AKA skewering the results.

The Media vs. Obama: Birth of a New Campaign 2012 Fairy Tale? | NewsBusters.org

I love the way Newsbusters does the usual neocon dance of placing supposition and conjecture with HALF the truth.


[COLOR="[U]Red"]Why was coverage of Obama so negative[/U]?
Republican contenders consistently leveled criticism against him at campaign stops and during debates, and that was often parroted by news outlets. Obama is also "inextricably linked," Kurtz notes, to unfavorable news coverage of the Supreme Court challenge to his health care legislation, rising gas prices, and the struggling economy.

How did coverage of Romney compare to his GOP rivals?Romney got a much easier ride, says Pew's Mark Jurkowitz. Rick Santorum "never enjoyed a sustained period of positive press," while Newt Gingrich enjoyed only one week of net positive coverage — the week that he won South Carolina. Ron Paul managed consistently positive coverage, but "this was offset by the fact that the media virtually ignored him," says Kurtz.


Does this disprove "liberal bias" in the media?Yes, says David Jackson at USA Today. It's time media-bashing conservatives started eating crow. Hold on, says Jonathan S. Tobin at Commentary. Many pundits are spinning this study as proof of "Obama-bashing" in the media, but they've got it wrong. Instead, Obama's "normally adoring press corps covered him more like a candidate than a commander-in-chief," transitioning from fawning over Obama as a historical barrier-buster to scrutinizing him. They were simply subjecting his "poor record" to routine examination. That's not bashing.
[/COLOR]


Let me dumb it down for ya, Tiny......the GOP got a carte blanche to bash Obama at every turn with every FAILED criticism used since the 2008 campaign, even when they were chewing each others legs. And like it or not, this IS an election year. No matter WHAT Obama said or did, you had Boehner and company accusing him of being "on campaign"....especially when he beats them at their own game.

So according to the GOP, Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. But their piss poor performance was and is their own worse enemy.

And PUH-LEEZE don't try to portray Newsbusters as an objective observer!

I never claimed Newsbusters was unbiased. Their job is to rip apart the bullshit in the left wing media.

Soul purpose in their lives and I for one appreciate it.

Just a quick note though on Obama being in campaign mode. I guess you've missed the latest statistics.

Obama has had more campaign fundraisers than 5 previous presidents combined. Boehner and the RNC are quite right.

Obama has held more re-election fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined as he visits key swing states on 'permanent campaign'

By Toby Harnden

PUBLISHED: 12:41 GMT, 29 April 2012 | UPDATED: 19:16 GMT, 29 April 2012



Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.

Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.

The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.

Obama has held more fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined as he visits key swing states on 'permanent campaign' | Mail Online

And since Tiny couldn't disprove my refutation of deconstruction of Newsbuster's bullshit, he now switches gears to whine about Obama and fundraising.


First Tiny, grow a pair and just acknowledge FACTS that disprove what you WANT to believe...THEN we can move onto your next wish list. I'll wait.

 

[taichiliberal]

Mr Romney is a liberal.
Next.

He is opposed to gay marriage. Liberals are not opposed to gay marriage.

Well I'm sure that is the TOP priority on the minds of the people today with the economy

Could of fooled me with all the hoo-ha over that subject in the last few years! But not to fear, Romney's flip flop on his State's healthcare action that was the blueprint for "Obamacare" will just be the opener for what will be a hysterical campaign of "butter wouldn't melt in Romney's mouth".