Support NeoGAF

[APF]

Link Here

Those are actual facts. And yes there are more companies that found the same thing. I'm still looking for those stats as well. The truth is I have facts you have one biased brain.

We already discussed that article when it came out. What you said was accurate was the claim that Obama got more negative coverage ON MSNBC than any other candidate combined. Not that Obama got negative coverage on CBS, on ABC, or on (non-MS) NBC, during a six week period after the primaries.

 

[reilo]

We already discussed that article when it came out. What you said was accurate was the claim that Obama got more negative coverage ON MSNBC than any other candidate combined. Not that Obama got negative coverage on CBS, on ABC, or on (non-MS) NBC, during a six week period after the primaries.

The article cites Andrea Mitchell... which tells me that they're including MSNBC under the NBC umbrella. Unless she said this on NBC nightly news?

 

[GhaleonEB]

I saw it mentioned in an article that right after the convention, Obama is launching a website collecting a ton of voter registration material. All states voter registration offices, rules, deadlines, that kind of stuff. When that goes live may be a good time to start a separate thread.

 

[Karma Kramer]

As a sticky! It's a waste of sticky space is what I was saying.

Yeah unfortunately there's no way a normal thread regarding voting registration will ever stay afloat on GAF more then a couple of hours. Completely defeating the purpose.

 

[mckmas8808]

We already discussed that article when it came out. What you said was accurate was the claim that Obama got more negative coverage ON MSNBC than any other candidate combined. Not that Obama got negative coverage on CBS, on ABC, or on (non-MS) NBC, during a six week period after the primaries.

Okay so I'm glad that you acknowledge the facts. Great! So here is where you are gonna have to trust me.......


*says in whisper voice* Being that they track what Andrea Mitchell said to be labeled "negative" (which it should be), I can promise you that those same negative comments were made on MSNBC ALL DAY back in those days.

Trust me on that APF. Trust me. The media is still stating that Obama has to get the working class white vote because he is doing poor in it. That's still happening today. Now answer this. Why isn't MSNBC (the Obama network) pushing this poll?

But even among white workers -- a group of voters that has been targeted by both parties as a key to victory in November -- Obama leads McCain by 10 percentage points, 47 percent to 37 percent, and has the advantage as the more empathetic candidate.

Link Here

Can anybody remember anytime in life where this poll from August 4th has been repeated on any network on TV?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Ask Evilore

 

[Xeke]

This whole discussion got me thinking. I wonder if I could sell my avatar location to an advertising company. Hmm. Space is everywhere.

 

[Amir0x]

Yeah unfortunately there's no way a normal thread regarding voting registration will ever stay afloat on GAF more then a couple of hours. Completely defeating the purpose.

Of course it would die.

Because most people know how to vote if they want to, and if they're smart enough to register for neoGAF.

 

[Xeke]

Yeah unfortunately there's no way a normal thread regarding voting registration will ever stay afloat on GAF more then a couple of hours. Completely defeating the purpose.

If it dies that's only because the free market decided it wasn't necessary.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Of course it would die.

Because most people know how to vote if they want to, and if they're smart enough to register for neoGAF.

It would die because there is no real discussion needed beyond just giving people the information in the OP. The thread wouldn't serve as anything more then just a place for people to clarify their state rules.

It could of course expand into something else and also become a central place for GAFers to work together on getting their friends and family registered. I certainly would be devoted to the thread by encouraging others to use social networking sites such as Facebook as a way to get more and more registered voters before the deadlines.

If it dies that's only because the free market decided it wasn't necessary.

If there was a thread on GAF's TOS... that thread wouldn't be that active at all. Doesn't mean that informing GAFers of the TOS isn't necessary.

 

[APF]

Okay so I'm glad that you acknowledge the facts. Great! So here is where you are gonna have to trust me.......

No, you said you had facts and citations, not speculation. So far, you have nothing that proves or suggests any validity in the point you supported. Mitchell might have made a single comment, but you're literally out of your mind if you think a single data point equates to pervasive bias against a candidate.

 

[typhonsentra]

Holy crap, this is the first time I've ever seen a pro-Obama ad on NeoGAF (It's from Moveon).

 

[Xeke]

If there was a thread on GAF's TOS... that thread wouldn't be that active at all. Doesn't mean that informing GAFers of the TOS isn't necessary.

But it's far more entertaining.

 

[Karma Kramer]

But it's far more entertaining.

What's more entertaining? I don't understand your post.

 

[Amir0x]

It would die because there is no real discussion needed beyond just giving people the information in the OP. The thread wouldn't serve as anything more then just a place for people to clarify their state rules.

It could of course expand into something else and also become a central place for GAFers to work together on getting their friends and family registered. I certainly would be devoted to the thread by encouraging others to use social networking sites such as Facebook as a way to get more and more registered voters before the deadlines.

oh i see, that's why it would die.

Please make the thread. Put as much work or as little work into it as you like. Nobody is trying to discourage you from doing it. If you catch a few... curious... individuals who actually don't know how to vote, more power to you. But this sticky discussion has derailed the thread and so that's that. I've already told you what I feel about it and why there's no reason to do it. If you ask for a sticky, you should be prepared for the answer you receive. It's not always going to be "yes."

If there was a thread on GAF's TOS... that thread wouldn't be that active at all. Doesn't mean that informing GAFers of the TOS isn't necessary.

Actually the thread would probably be pretty active since people love to bitch about the TOS. BUT, we wouldn't need such a thread. Because like this voting thread you wish to make, anyone who has registered for neoGAF knows how to find and read the TOS. If they break a rule, it is not because they don't know how to read the TOS. It's because they chose to ignore them or not read them anyway.

 

[reilo]

No, you said you had facts and citations, not speculation. So far, you have nothing that proves or suggests any validity in the point you supported. Mitchell might have made a single comment, but you're literally out of your mind if you think a single data point equates to pervasive bias against a candidate.

Is this one of those "logical fallacies" where you state that MSNBC is more positive to Obama, then someone proclaims no, they're not, and you go "well prove it", eventhough the burden of proof is on you?

 

[Mandark]

Last media study I read showed MSNBC more positive towards Obama than Clinton so it sounds plausible to me. CNN was the reverse but that's another thing.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/new...ng__Obama_s_pick_creates_GOP_opportunity.html

I like Mike on MSNBC when he is on there, but wouldn't this just give Obama the election in a landslide?

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/new...ng__Obama_s_pick_creates_GOP_opportunity.html

He is talking about McCain picking Tom Ridge. No pro-choice person is ever going to be on a Republican ticket. The comments sections backs me up.

 

[Clevinger]

Of course it would die.

Because most people know how to vote if they want to, and if they're smart enough to register for neoGAF.

Yeah, voter registration is a tad harder than selecting an email address, username, and password.

And there are people out there who will have the incentive to register after having been reminded.

Anyways, it's all moot. It'd be taking up that valuable 6th sports sticky spot.

 

[ViperVisor]

"I don't repeat talking points." - Sean Hannity :lol

I guess he doesn't know what "talking" or "points" or "talking points" are.

 

[Amir0x]

Yeah, voter registration is a tad harder than selecting an email address, username, and password.

And there are people out there who have the incentive to register after having been reminded.

Anyways, it's all moot. It'd be taking up that valuable 6th sports sticky location.

No actually it's almost exactly as easy as that. The only difference is you fill out a few extra bits of information and you print and mail. Alternatively, you simply go to any number of locations to register to vote. ALL of which are readily available to find to anyone who has even the most remote of interest in getting register.

But feel free to make the thread itself, it still may have some value for someone.

Again, that's the end of this discussion. If you don't appreciate being told no to a sticky, don't ask.

 

[Karma Kramer]

oh i see, that's why it would die.

Please make the thread. Put as much work or as little work into it as you like. Nobody is trying to discourage you from doing it. If you catch a few... curious... individuals who actually don't know how to vote, more power to you. But this sticky discussion has derailed the thread and so that's that. I've already told you what I feel about it and why there's no reason to do it. If you ask for a sticky, you should be prepared for the answer you receive. It's not always going to be "yes."

Wow thanks for the encouragement! You are just beaming with optimism.

Actually the thread would probably be pretty active since people love to bitch about the TOS. BUT, we wouldn't need such a thread. Because like this voting thread you wish to make, anyone who has registered for neoGAF knows how to find and read the TOS. If they break a rule, it is not because they don't know how to read the TOS. It's because they chose to ignore them or not read them anyway.

I see you are really trying to beat around the bush with me here. Anytime there is an alteration in posting rules (spoiling the final Harry Potter book) there is a notice that is stickied to the top of GAF. This sticky is a locked thread, and only serves to inform GAF of something. If that stickied notice was simply a normal thread, well sure it would have gotten some activity... but eventually it probably would have died off the front page.

The point of this voting "registration" thread is to simply inform people that they should register to vote in one of the most important elections of our time. Its simply information that needs to get across. Its not exactly a topic that needs much discussion... just views.

But no no no... we wouldn't want to take up a couple centimeters of GAF with bullshit like this.

 

[Clevinger]

No actually it's almost exactly as easy as that. The only difference is you fill out a few extra bits of information and you print and mail. Alternatively, you simply go to any number of locations to register to vote. ALL of which are readily available to find to anyone who has even the most remote of interest in getting register.

Again, that's the end of this discussion. If you don't appreciate being told no to a sticky, don't ask.

The only difference is a paragraph of differences. And I never asked.

 

[mckmas8808]

Last media study I read showed MSNBC more positive towards Obama than Clinton so it sounds plausible to me. CNN was the reverse but that's another thing.

One question I have for you (you're very balanced in your post) is this. Do you consider things like "Can Obama get more of the white working class vote that Hillary beat him on?" question as negative Obama media stuff?

 

[Amir0x]

The only difference is a paragraph of differences. And I never asked.

Denseness never got anyone anywhere. There are a few ways to register to vote, each individually as simple as registering for a neoGAF account. That's what was highlighted in the paragraph. The only actual difference is time it takes to do it.

Can Obama get more of the white working class vote that Hillary beat him on?" question as negative Obama media stuff?

Wouldn't that sort of depend on the answer that was received? I guess if the number of questions are overwhelmingly negative in nature, this is weighed.

These things seem pretty difficult to measure accurately, so I don't know how much stock I put in them anyway

 

[sprsk]

There are already 6 fucking stickies.

 

[pxleyes]

There are already 6 fucking stickies.

One, the moved topic, really needs to go away. The Olympic one should be gone after tonight as well.

 

[mckmas8808]

Wouldn't that sort of depend on the answer that was received? I guess if the number of questions are overwhelmingly negative in nature, this is weighed.

These things seem pretty difficult to measure accurately, so I don't know how much stock I put in them anyway

While your answer is a good one, wouldn't' that mean you personally (yourself) are not allowed to speak of media bias being that you also don't know how to weigh the questions and answers of the media?

 

[Mandark]

One question I have for you (you're very balanced in your post) is this. Do you consider things like "Can Obama get more of the white working class vote that Hillary beat him on?" question as negative Obama media stuff?

You are just TRYING to goad me into a massive post on the political newsmedia, aren't you?

 

[Amir0x]

While your answer is a good one, wouldn't' that mean you personally (yourself) are not allowed to speak of media bias being that you also don't know how to weigh the questions and answers of the media?

I am not allowed to talk about media bias with any sort of authority, since i have none. I don't see why I cannot submit my opinion on it.

Though I guess these "media studies" are a bit better than nothing at all.

 

[APF]

Very early on, MSNBC was positive towards basically every candidate (see: that Harvard study I kept linking), with Obama leading positive coverage. While I'm willing to entertain the idea that it's since balanced its coverage of Obama now that he's the nominee, the actual claim that I was countering was that he's received more negative coverage on that channel than every other candidate combined. That claim--mckmas8808's claim--is a lie. He was the most positively-covered candidate, especially when you consider how utterly awful (negative) the coverage of John McCain was, even on Fox News (where during the early primaries, he was covered less positively than either Clinton or Obama)

 

[Karma Kramer]

There are already 6 fucking stickies.

Wouldn't be anymore cause the Olympics are over. Plus now is the perfect time with both Conventions happening right now. Everyone is in the political spirit.

 

[Amir0x]

sticky discussion -> PM

 

[APF]

I should also add that while in my above post I'm using the term "positive coverage" loosely, to represent the balance of positive:negative, it's also entirely possible that presently on many news networks Obama gets an overwhelming amount of both positive and negative coverage (see: CNN); in this case there's still an imbalance of coverage overall, even if someone else (read: McCain) may tie or win-out when comparing ratios (or number of individual data points) alone.

 

[adg1034]

Okay, crazy idea time. Simply put, antagonizing national conservative talk radio.

What would happen if we all put our heads together and came up with smart, powerful, and devastatingly confusing things to say on, for example, the Rush Limbaugh show?

Things like "Wow- I can't believe the left-wing media is so inept. I had CNN on the other day, and they were covering the John Edwards affair like it was the next Michael Jackson trial. If anything, you'd think they'd be talking about McCain's infidelity in his first marriage. I thought these guys were supposed to have an agenda. What gives?"

Or calling in to the O'Reilly Factor and just playing a clip of Mr. Bill lambasting McCain from some earlier show (you know the recordings have to be out there).

Confusion, deception, and just plain trying to get people to think. Thoughts?

Edit: APF incoming...

 

[Tamanon]

Okay, crazy idea time. Simply put, antagonizing national conservative talk radio.

What would happen if we all put our heads together and came up with smart, powerful, and devastatingly confusing things to say on, for example, the Rush Limbaugh show?

Things like "Wow- I can't believe the left-wing media is so inept. I had CNN on the other day, and they were covering the John Edwards affair like it was the next Michael Jackson trial. If anything, you'd think they'd be talking about McCain's infidelity in his first marriage. I thought these guys were supposed to have an agenda. What gives?"

Or calling in to the O'Reilly Factor and just playing a clip of Mr. Bill lambasting McCain from some earlier show (you know the recordings have to be out there).

Confusion, deception, and just plain trying to get people to think. Thoughts?

Edit: APF incoming...

People already try and do that, their screeners are pretty good at it. Plus, most of the hosts have no problem interrupting and talking over.

 

[adg1034]

People already try and do that, their screeners are pretty good at it. Plus, most of the hosts have no problem interrupting and talking over.

Fair enough. I still don't see that, with proper preparation/pretending like you're coming from the POV of an irate conservative, you'd have any more trouble getting on than anyone else out in Radioland.

 

[APF]

Wait you're making derogatory comments about my posting in this thread while you propose trolling folks who don't share your viewpoints?

 

[mckmas8808]

Very early on, MSNBC was positive towards basically every candidate (see: that Harvard study I kept linking), with Obama leading positive coverage. While I'm willing to entertain the idea that it's since balanced its coverage of Obama now that he's the nominee, the actual claim that I was countering was that he's received more negative coverage on that channel than every other candidate combined. That claim--mckmas8808's claim--is a lie. He was the most positively-covered candidate, especially when you consider how utterly awful (negative) the coverage of John McCain was, even on Fox News (where during the early primaries, he was covered less positively than either Clinton or Obama)

Are these your thoughts? Are you telling me that since the middle of March (aka Paster I gate) that Obama hasn't received more negative press than Hillary or McCain?



Case I:

A: McCain says on many networks that he will run a clean campaign.
B: McCain ends up running commericals comparing Obama to Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Moses, and Jesus Christ.
C: Most of the media never say anything about how this shows McCain's true character.

A: Obama says he wants to change how Washington is run.
B: Obama releases a commerical about anything hard hitting.
C: Press questions if this new commerical will hurt Obama's talk about changing Washington.


Case II:

A: Obama says that Hillary would be on anybody's short list of nominees for VP.
B: Media shows Obama saying that and talks about Hillary being the possible VP.
C: Time goes by and media start to realize that Hillary will not be the VP.
D: News comes out that Hillary wasn't on the short list and wasn't even vetted.
E: Media talks about this news for the whole day.
F: News comes out that Hillary didn't want to be vetted unless she was guaranteed the VP choice.
G: Media ignores that news (above in letter F) and continues to ask why Obama didn't vet her and if this will hurt him with the 18 million Hillary voters.



And all of this happens on MSNBC all day besides the 8 and 10 o'clock timeslots.

 

[Amir0x]

Wait you're making derogatory comments about my posting in this thread while you propose trolling folks who don't share your viewpoints?

hahaa, i have to agree with APF on this one :lol

 

[adg1034]

Wait you're making derogatory comments about my posting in this thread while you propose trolling folks who don't share your viewpoints?

No, I just realized you'd posted directly above me, and so, assuming your F5 finger was in shape, the first response I'd get would not likely be a supportive one.

EDIT: It would have been like posting something positive about Nintendogs, then realizing Drinky had posted immediately prior.

 

[APF]

mckmas8808: just post the citations you claimed you had, then we can talk about actual data

 

[mckmas8808]

mckmas8808: just post the citations you claimed you had, then we can talk about actual data

I already did.

 

[Particle Physicist]

lol, they're both idiots. That reporter had every right to be there but his "do you believe in freedom of speech" line in response to being shut out was retarded.

well. reporters usually dont jump in the middle of the walking rally.. they tend to stay on the outskirts and try to grab a few people for interviews.. the guy was looking for trouble.

 

[APF]

I already did.

You claimed to have ready multiple citations supporting the idea that Obama has received more negative coverage on msnbc than every candidate combined, and yet have provided exactly nothing making that claim. Therefore you lied.

 

[ralexand]

Funny how Fox only mentions the tied Gallup poll and not the Rasmussen one.

 

[mckmas8808]

You claimed to have ready multiple citations supporting the idea that Obama has received more negative coverage on msnbc than every candidate combined, and yet have provided exactly nothing making that claim. Therefore you lied.

Ok I admit you got me on the "on msnbc than every candidate combined" part. I see what you are doing here. You are obviously on that one part of that guy's post.

But overall you know what I mean and what my intentions were. I was more focused on the media as a whole with MSNBC included in that data.

Funny how Fox only mentions the tied Gallup poll and not the Rasmussen one.

Even funnier is that when Obama was leading by 4 or so point and tied in the Rasmussen FoxNews didn't report the Gallup poll but did report on the Rasmussen.

It's soooo obvious why 80+% of the FoxNews viewship are republican.

 

[APF]

Of course, I could imagine multiple scenarios where that might occur:

For example, if Obama is discussed 1000 times in some unspecified time period, and 30% of those stories or comments are negative, while McCain is discussed 100 times in that same time period, and 75% of those stories / comments are negative, then numerically speaking Obama did receive more negative coverage.

 

[ViperVisor]

Ok I admit you got me on the "on msnbc than every candidate combined" part. I see what you are doing here. You are obviously on that one part of that guy's post.

But overall you know what I mean and what my intentions were. I was more focused on the media as a whole with MSNBC included in that data.



Even funnier is that when Obama was leading by 4 or so point and tied in the Rasmussen FoxNews didn't report the Gallup poll but did report on the Rasmussen.

It's soooo obvious why 80+% of the FoxNews viewship are republican.

MSNBC will get back closer to FOX. Scarb is back in action tomorrow on Morning Joe! Patty B will be there. At least Matthews called out Pat on his BS stumping for Hillary today.

 

[laserbeam]

Funny how Fox only mentions the tied Gallup poll and not the Rasmussen one.

At this point it really doesnt matter. Polling data is so close and within margins. Once both conventions are over and all that crap is out of the way polls will start to really show the direction going

CNN has them tied at Obama-Mccain 47-47
Gallup has them tied at Obama-Mccain 45-45
Rasmussen has them Obama-Mccain 47-46