Media Against the President

[jackstar7]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-press-study-20111017,0,1489006.story

As for President Obama, as one would expect for a sitting president, he has gotten plenty of coverage. But that coverage has been relentlessly negative in tone. The study found that only 9% of the mentions of Obama were positive, compared with 34% negative and 57% neutral -- far more negative than the coverage of any of the Republicans.

The MSM is SO in love with President Obama.

Yup.

 

[PokerGuy]

Your inability to think logically is exposed again.

The study found that only 9% of the mentions of Obama were positive, compared with 34% negative and 57% neutral -- far more negative than the coverage of any of the Republicans.

There is very little to cover at this point for any of the gop candidates, they are not currently the president. In other words, they are covering them as candidates, which is generally a lot more positive than when covering a sitting president. Obummer should be getting 90% negative, 10% neutral, but is getting 34% negative and 57% neutral. That's the result of the bias.

 

[Anarchist420]

They've mistreated Dr. Paul a lot more than they've done to Obama. Of course, that's because Obama wants to keep them in business, while Dr. Paul would probably take away their life support (i.e., FCC).

 

[woolfe9999]

Your inability to think logically is exposed again.



There is very little to cover at this point for any of the gop candidates, they are not currently the president. In other words, they are covering them as candidates, which is generally a lot more positive than when covering a sitting president. Obummer should be getting 90% negative, 10% neutral, but is getting 34% negative and 57% neutral. That's the result of the bias.

You'd have to compare it to other POTUSES facing a poor economy. However, 3.4:1 neg/pos doesn't sound like a pro-Obama bias. And "neutral" comments generally should predominate in objective, fact based reporting. It isn't the media's job to pass judgment. That is the heart of the claim of liberal bias in the media, that it doesn't have a conservative bias.

 

[jackstar7]

Your inability to think logically is exposed again.



There is very little to cover at this point for any of the gop candidates, they are not currently the president. In other words, they are covering them as candidates, which is generally a lot more positive than when covering a sitting president. Obummer should be getting 90% negative, 10% neutral, but is getting 34% negative and 57% neutral. That's the result of the bias.

My inability personally? Wow. This was far more revelatory than I expected. I should probably lose my position at the LA Times... that I don't have.

Thanks for the insight, dumbnuts.

 

[PokerGuy]

And "neutral" comments generally should predominate in objective, fact based reporting.

Yeah? I'd love to see someone try to show how "neutral" comments were the norm during the last 4 Bush years.

It isn't the media's job to pass judgment.

I agree, but that sure didn't seem to bother them when GWB was in office.

That is the heart of the claim of liberal bias in the media, that it doesn't have a conservative bias.

I'd be thrilled with a neutral stance, that would be a huge step up from the far left angle we have now.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yeah? I'd love to see someone try to show how "neutral" comments were the norm during the last 4 Bush years.



I agree, but that sure didn't seem to bother them when GWB was in office.



I'd be thrilled with a neutral stance, that would be a huge step up from the far left angle we have now.

Er, 9% positive comments do not a "far left angle" make...

You make a point though. I'd be interested to see a study using the same methodology that examined coverage during the Bush admin.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You'd have to compare it to other POTUSES facing a poor economy. However, 3.4:1 neg/pos doesn't sound like a pro-Obama bias. And "neutral" comments generally should predominate in objective, fact based reporting. It isn't the media's job to pass judgment. That is the heart of the claim of liberal bias in the media, that it doesn't have a conservative bias.

You'd have to compare it to what constitutes "negative" as well. Is it regarding policies, their execution, or cheap shots? I didn't think much of Obama's predecessor however I don't see how Obama is being more harshly treated than he was. I'd say the general tone was that Bush was an idiot and Obama is haughty and I believe there are good reasons for that being the case.

 

[woolfe9999]

You'd have to compare it to what constitutes "negative" as well. Is it regarding policies, their execution, or cheap shots? I didn't think much of Obama's predecessor however I don't see how Obama is being more harshly treated than he was. I'd say the general tone was that Bush was an idiot and Obama is haughty and I believe there are good reasons for that being the case.

Yes the metholodoly of categorization is all important. This study apparently had researchers doing the initial characterization then training a computer program to do it from there. I find that interesting though likely problematic.

I don't think Obama has been treated more harshly than Bush but I don't think he's been treated less harshly either. There is a tendency for ideologues to see the opposite bias in reporting because they mistake their opinions for facts, and when they don't see their opinions reflected in the coverage, they conclude that the coverage is biased. The more ideological the viewer/reader, the stronger this tendency. It's an observed phenomena called the hostile media effect.

- wolf

 

[fskimospy]

How's that liberal media bias coming for you guys? No? Not there? Don't say I didn't tell you so.

 

[PokerGuy]

How's that liberal media bias coming for you guys? No? Not there? Don't say I didn't tell you so.

See above. It's definitely there. If you consider that when you look at "the media" you're including outlets like FOX that tend to have a negative angle on this admin, it's pretty clear the rest of the media must be heavily tilted in the other direction to have these kinds of numbers.

 

[fskimospy]

See above. It's definitely there. If you consider that when you look at "the media" you're including outlets like FOX that tend to have a negative angle on this admin, it's pretty clear the rest of the media must be heavily tilted in the other direction to have these kinds of numbers.

Ahahaha, of course it is. Think of how deluded you have to be where in your world a 9% positive story ratio is evidence of bias in favor of someone. You were probably one of those idiots that thought the negative campaign coverage towards McCain was evidence of liberal media bias too.

I understand though, the belief that the media is against you is a vital component of the conservative culture of victimhood. There's a powerful need to be a victim, and you won't be separated from it easily.

 

[PokerGuy]

the conservative culture of victimhood.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Thank you for the great laugh today. A lefty accusing the right of having a "culture of victimhood". That's rich. What's next, you planning to accuse the right of pro union bias? LOL

 

[fskimospy]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Thank you for the great laugh today. A lefty accusing the right of having a "culture of victimhood". That's rich. What's next, you planning to accuse the right of pro union bias? LOL

No problem, it's the first step to understanding. A vital part of conservative culture is believing that they are constantly the victim of a conspiracy of the news media, culture, scientists, educators, researchers, etc, who are all trying to enforce their ideology on poor unsuspecting America.

It is sort of funny though, I agree! The very people who say they are so fiercely independent are some of the biggest whiners of how unfair everyone is to them.

 

[Atreus21]

How's that liberal media bias coming for you guys? No? Not there? Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Still there, from what I can see.

 

[thegimp03]

Coming from the LA Times. Pure gold.

 

[dank69]

See above. It's definitely there. If you consider that when you look at "the media" you're including outlets like FOX that tend to have a negative angle on this admin, it's pretty clear the rest of the media must be heavily tilted in the other direction to have these kinds of numbers.

I don't like how you are putting a negative spin on FOX 'Fair and Balanced' News.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Um, Liberal Bias?

For one thing, "Liberal" means willing to accept other opinions/positions/stances. So the whole statement is an oxymoron.....

But lets just go on that. Maybe saying "Leftist" bias rather than "Liberal".

The media really should not swing either way, but they seem to do so based on their viewer demographic. They pander much more than they report. You want a litmus test? Go to the BBC reports, especially on issues more concerned with the US than with GB.

Then go to the XXX Nightly News with YYY. Aside from half the stories being human interest fluff, the other half seem to deal more with emotion than actual fact.

Now, go to Faux and Friends and you get a Murdoch Nation that makes money not by reporting the news, but by filtering out the "nasty bits" that his viewers would not want to hear, then coating it all with abusive and derisive pundits who earn their money based on how many hits they get on their blogs after a show.

I wish our news was more willing to report everything rather than our current choices of fluff or crap.

 

[Ninjahedge]

I don't like how you are putting a negative spin on FOX 'Fair and Balanced' News.

When news is spun enough, you can be balanced even when you are tilted completely over....

Spin spin sugar.

 

[Fern]

Pretty useless unless/until we know how "positive", "negative", "neutral" and "campaign coverage" is defined.

E.g., if somebody remarks that unemployment being at 9% is a problem for Obama in reelection is that "negative"? (It's entirely factual, IIRC no one has ever been reelected before with that kind of number.)

We also don't who or what is included in the study either. A poster above remarked that "neutral comments should predominate in objective, fact based reporting". For one thing, that is built upon the assumption negative and/or positive remarks are subjective and not fact-based in nature. We have no info available to make that determination. For another, it seems to assume that editorial type coverage (which dominates the cable news channels. I don't think MSNBC even offers a straight-up news program, they are all editorial in nature) is not included. If the study included campaign coverage on editorial shows it will by necessity include subjective remarks.

Piss poor article that proves exactly zero. All we really know is that somebody made a fancy piece of software and went to the trouble of running news coverage through it. It could be a complete case of GIGO.

Fern

 

[Fern]

How's that liberal media bias coming for you guys? No? Not there? Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Ever seen Ed Shultz?

Keith Olbermann?

Chris Matthews?

Rachel Maddow?

David Gregory?

I could go on....


Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

Ever seen Ed Shultz?

Keith Olbermann?

Chris Matthews?

Rachel Maddow?

David Gregory?

I could go on....


Fern

There are two bedrock principles behind the right wing canard of a leftwing media. The first is the hostile media affect which I discussed above. The second is in refusing to acknowledge the distinction between punditry and fact reporting, as with the above example. And no matter how many times we point this out, we'll keep hearing that Mr. Olbermann is an example of biased reporting in the media. And this time from a poster who should know better.

 

[Craig234]

Coming from the LA Times. Pure gold.

Coming from thegimp! Haha!

 

[ElFenix]

There are two bedrock principles behind the right wing canard of a leftwing media. The first is the hostile media affect which I discussed above. The second is in refusing to acknowledge the distinction between punditry and fact reporting, as with the above example. And no matter how many times we point this out, we'll keep hearing that Mr. Olbermann is an example of biased reporting in the media. And this time from a poster who should know better.

fern had just explained punditry and i'm going to guess that a lot of the mouth spewing against obama from fox comes from the pundtry shows.

and of course punditry should be counted when discussing media. there's less and less hard news on and more and more punditry shows, such that the punditry shows are probably the largest segment of news distribution as far as eyeball-hours go.

though, if you get rid of the punditry shows on fox, there's about an hour of hard news a day left and the bias is probably barely visible. so then is fox's 3 references against obama during the one hard news hour a day outweigh, say, MSNBC's 9 references against republicans during their three hours of hard news a day? (numbers for an easy math example, not intended to be accurate).






what i want to know about this study is, in addition to fern asking how things like 'running against 9% unemployment is going to be tough' are counted in the survey, which direction is the 'negative' coming from? if you say, 'mr. obama is a failure because he didn't push through medicare for all' that is different from saying 'mr. obama is a communist who wants government to take over healthcare.' both negative, but one is right, and one is left. and without knowing which way the criticism went, you can't tell anything except that the media is generally negative about obama (and you may not even be able to tell that, see fern's example).

 

[Craig234]

Ever seen Ed Shultz?

Keith Olbermann?

Chris Matthews?

Rachel Maddow?

David Gregory?

I could go on....


Fern

Putting aside their role as liberal journalists, that would not excuse inaccuracy.

Please list 3 inaccurate stories for each person above that weren't corrected.

Each does thousands of stories, and according to you are FILLED with bias that I infer has to be full of inaccuracies, so you should not have any problem.

Except you are the biased and inaccurate one and cannot back up your attack with facts - kind of ironic.