Team Obama: "We Control the Media"

[Xenophon]

Barry sure shows wonderful 'judgement' in picking people, doesn't he.

A 'fan' of Mao!

Life in Barryland is just one fuckup after another.

 

[Xenophon]

You must watch Fox News exclusively. The other networks glossed over Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers and slammed McCain for supporters like John Hagee. Try watching other news programs once in a while. You'll see the truth. Until then, I'm sorry you're not a troll. That can only mean one thing: you're ignorant. Get the facts.

Obama = Bush III. Somehow that's supposed to be good?

Wright and Ayers got wall to wall coverage on CNN and MSNBC.

That was before Obama got the Democratic Nomination. Prior to that, Hillary was the front-runner. Look it up.

You are wasting your time with him, that one is an apparatchik for Barry, notice how he has a nice spin for EVERYTHING the boiking says or does.

 

[Polk]

You must watch Fox News exclusively. The other networks glossed over Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers and slammed McCain for supporters like John Hagee. Try watching other news programs once in a while. You'll see the truth. Until then, I'm sorry you're not a troll. That can only mean one thing: you're ignorant. Get the facts.

Obama = Bush III. Somehow that's supposed to be good?

Wright and Ayers got wall to wall coverage on CNN and MSNBC.

That was before Obama got the Democratic Nomination. Prior to that, Hillary was the front-runner. Look it up.

Obama wasn't the nominee when Ayers was getting tons of press coverage in early October?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

POLK!!!!!!!!!!

YOU LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

That study only goes to 2005!!!!!!

How the **** can you make a statement about Wright based on a study that ENDED IN 2005!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALL OF YOUR CREDIBILITY HAS JUST GONE DOWN THE SHITTER!!!!!!!

 

[Xenophon]

POLK!!!!!!!!!!

YOU LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

That study only goes to 2005!!!!!!

How the **** can you make a statement about Wright based on a study that ENDED IN 2005!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALL OF YOUR CREDIBILITY HAS JUST GONE DOWN THE SHITTER!!!!!!!

What credibility?

 

[uptownlivin90]

I mean conspiracy theories aside if people are debating whether or not Obama get's more good coverage then bad in the press... it's all an odd numbers game and I'm completely convinced that each network has it's own bias based on issues not personality:

Media Coverage of Obama Grows More Negative - US News and World Report

Broken down for more easy reading here...
CMPA:STUDY: OBAMA’S MEDIA COVERAGE SOURS

Interesting thing about this study was 1. it highlights some issues that give Obama more favorability in the media... 2. foreign policy and the financial bailouts aren't his strong points, 3. job creation and the stimulus got big support from the media.. 4. health care was in the middle... 5. his positive press time is decreasing rapidly (so much for control over the media)... 6. FOX News has been consistantly in the same place when it comes to Obama coverage since he got into office, negative.

Also the study shows that economic issues (which Obama tends to do well on in the media) have been covered more, probably attributing to his numbers not sinking below the serious danger mark... and just following that are the not so good for Obama bailout stories:
The Economy Leads Despite heavy coverage of health reform and the war on terror, economic topics have generated by far the most stories on the administration.

Top 10 administration topics:
1. Economic conditions – 279
2. Economic stimulus – 225
3. Industry bailouts – 159
4. Afghanistan – 159
5. Health care reform – 156
6. Int’l terrorism – 112
7. Iraq – 90
8. Guantanamo – 82
9. Iran – 72
10. Unemployment – 65

Make what you want with the information, overall I think the best thing to pull out of this is to see exactly "da media" is on what issues they'd rather cover, rather then the individual in the office. That's just me...

 

[Polk]

POLK!!!!!!!!!!

YOU LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

That study only goes to 2005!!!!!!

How the **** can you make a statement about Wright based on a study that ENDED IN 2005!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALL OF YOUR CREDIBILITY HAS JUST GONE DOWN THE SHITTER!!!!!!!

Two things:
1. I never claimed the study was about Wright.
2. You seen anything that causes you to believe the numbers have shifted since then? (the study has been updated twice since, both in 2006, and the numbers showed the exact same thing)

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Polk. Definately one of the duped! How sad that in America people fall for crap like this.

 

[del]

If Obama has the support of the major new outlets, why do they give Republicans more airtime and are much less critical of the claims made by Republicans?

More airtime than what? Less critical than whom?

The other major party. The Democrats. Maybe you've heard of them?

I see you've moved beyond posting logical fallacies to posting content containing comparative adjectives without providing an actual comparison.

There has been a long documented preference for right-wingers to be give more face time on the Sunday shows for years and I've yet to see any figures that's changed.

well then document it or STFU.

thanks in advance

 

[Si modo]

The other major party. The Democrats. Maybe you've heard of them?



There has been a long documented preference for right-wingers to be give more face time on the Sunday shows for years and I've yet to see any figures that's changed.

Source?

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/MMFA_Sunday_Show_Report.pdf

Before screaming "it's Media Matters", it's not like they can just invent these numbers (as it would be painfully easy to disprove by looking at the records).

WTF does a study from 1997-2005 have to do with BHO and his systemic manipulation of the press or even with current claims about BHO and the press?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

POLK!!!!!!!!!!

YOU LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

That study only goes to 2005!!!!!!

How the **** can you make a statement about Wright based on a study that ENDED IN 2005!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALL OF YOUR CREDIBILITY HAS JUST GONE DOWN THE SHITTER!!!!!!!

Two things:
1. I never claimed the study was about Wright.
2. You seen anything that causes you to believe the numbers have shifted since then? (the study has been updated twice since, both in 2006, and the numbers showed the exact same thing)

D-U-P-E


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfto5yYc2p4]YouTube - YAWN! PitBull Sharky in a Swimming Pool with Sunglasses![/ame]

 

[Polk]

I mean conspiracy theories aside if people are debating whether or not Obama get's more good coverage then bad in the press... it's all an odd numbers game and I'm completely convinced that each network has it's own bias based on issues not personality:

Media Coverage of Obama Grows More Negative - US News and World Report

Broken down for more easy reading here...
CMPA:STUDY: OBAMA’S MEDIA COVERAGE SOURS

Interesting thing about this study was 1. it highlights some issues that give Obama more favorability in the media... 2. foreign policy and the financial bailouts aren't his strong points, 3. job creation and the stimulus got big support from the media.. 4. health care was in the middle... 5. his positive press time is decreasing rapidly (so much for control over the media)... 6. FOX News has been consistantly in the same place when it comes to Obama coverage since he got into office, negative.

Also the study shows that economic issues (which Obama tends to do well on in the media) have been covered more, probably attributing to his numbers not sinking below the serious danger mark... and just following that are the not so good for Obama bailout stories:
The Economy Leads Despite heavy coverage of health reform and the war on terror, economic topics have generated by far the most stories on the administration.

Top 10 administration topics:
1. Economic conditions – 279
2. Economic stimulus – 225
3. Industry bailouts – 159
4. Afghanistan – 159
5. Health care reform – 156
6. Int’l terrorism – 112
7. Iraq – 90
8. Guantanamo – 82
9. Iran – 72
10. Unemployment – 65

Make what you want with the information, overall I think the best thing to pull out of this is to see exactly "da media" is on what issues they'd rather cover, rather then the individual in the office. That's just me...

Even coverage of economic issues isn't positive coverage though. "Economic conditions" stories about why is Wall Street looking to be in decent shape while job growth hasn't fired back up yet. "Economic stimulus" stories are for the most part about talking about how much of a "failure" stimulus has been (how you can judge a program to be a failure when less than half has been completed is beyond me). "Industry bailout" stories are by in large about how the government has looked out for Wall Street while neglecting Main Street.

 

[Polk]

More airtime than what? Less critical than whom?

The other major party. The Democrats. Maybe you've heard of them?

I see you've moved beyond posting logical fallacies to posting content containing comparative adjectives without providing an actual comparison.

There has been a long documented preference for right-wingers to be give more face time on the Sunday shows for years and I've yet to see any figures that's changed.

well then document it or STFU.

thanks in advance

The posted the link to the study earlier in the thread.

 

[Xenophon]

More airtime than what? Less critical than whom?

The other major party. The Democrats. Maybe you've heard of them?

I see you've moved beyond posting logical fallacies to posting content containing comparative adjectives without providing an actual comparison.

There has been a long documented preference for right-wingers to be give more face time on the Sunday shows for years and I've yet to see any figures that's changed.

well then document it or STFU.

thanks in advance

Watch out, he will soon call you a right winger who carries the GoP's water!

 

[PatekPhilippe]

6. FOX News has been consistantly in the same place when it comes to Obama coverage since he got into office, negative.

Now that's what I call CONSISTENCY!!

 

[Si modo]

POLK!!!!!!!!!!

YOU LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

That study only goes to 2005!!!!!!

How the **** can you make a statement about Wright based on a study that ENDED IN 2005!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALL OF YOUR CREDIBILITY HAS JUST GONE DOWN THE SHITTER!!!!!!!

Two things:
1. I never claimed the study was about Wright.
2. You seen anything that causes you to believe the numbers have shifted since then? (the study has been updated twice since, both in 2006, and the numbers showed the exact same thing)

Then give a RELEVANT source when asked for one!

 

[del]

The other major party. The Democrats. Maybe you've heard of them?



There has been a long documented preference for right-wingers to be give more face time on the Sunday shows for years and I've yet to see any figures that's changed.

well then document it or STFU.

thanks in advance

The posted the link to the study earlier in the thread.

pssst. it's not 2005 any more.

keep it under your hat.

 

[Xenophon]

6. FOX News has been consistantly in the same place when it comes to Obama coverage since he got into office, negative.

Now that's what I call CONSISTENTCY!!

If only Chris Wallace had devoted 30 minutes to Barry's Latin dancing, this all could have been avoided!

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The other major party. The Democrats. Maybe you've heard of them?



There has been a long documented preference for right-wingers to be give more face time on the Sunday shows for years and I've yet to see any figures that's changed.

well then document it or STFU.

thanks in advance

The posted the link to the study earlier in the thread.

Bwa ha ha ha ha

a 4 year old study by mediamatters.org.....

 

[Polk]

well then document it or STFU.

thanks in advance

The posted the link to the study earlier in the thread.

pssst. it's not 2005 any more.

keep it under your hat.

Have you seen in major shifts in media coverage over the past four years? I surely haven't. George Will still has his seat every Sunday on This Week.