Support NeoGAF

[Mumei]

... what on earth are you talking about? There is a rather large difference between saying "the media is being overwhelmingly positive on Obama"and "why isn't the fact he's some secret muslim communist america hating scum bag getting more coverage." The media is fawning over Obama, I think most people could pretty obviously see that.

Gaborn, what I don't understand about your posts is that you appear to have no ultimate point, no real argument that you are making. You reiterate over and over again that you believe that Obama's coverage is overwhelming positive; other people disagree and come up with numerous examples of Obama's coverage being quite negative. The pattern there is clear enough. What is not clear to me is what your point is with all of this. If it is about media bias, you have a better target in McCain's coverage in the media, I think.

 

[Gaborn]

Why would you? It didn't involve Obama and it didn't involve anything outside of Illinois, also there were no white girls involved.

I was responding to Typhonsentra's claim that

Every media organization covered that trial pretty aggressively until it became obvious Obama's name wasn't going to come up in any meaningful way.

because... that's not true.

Mumei - I guess I'm kind of flabbergasted by how insular GAF seems on Obama. It's like every negative story about Obama in GAF's mind gets 10x more coverage and they're not seeing the absolute fawning tone. I made a narrow point, that the media is covering Obama overwhelmingly positively. From there I've been accused of thinking Obama is a communist (by and admin no less!) called a liar, and generally been considered "blind" for not seeing balanced media coverage on Obama. I AGREE that the media has mentioned negatives and positives, I've just said they cover the positive overwhelmingly and mostly look at the surface of negative stories briefly, the Wright situation being a story that got a lot of play on FOX (apparently since... I almost never watch that channel) and barely mentioned elsewhere.

I don't think I've said anything outrageous or offensive in that, I don't think I'm being out of line in saying that, and I don't think I'm ignoring reality to say that most of the media is treating Obama like he's darn close to the presumed president and front runner.

As for McCain, as I said I really don't care for him, and it seems the media doesn't much either, he gets the baseline coverage and then they go back to asking about Obama again.

 

[The Librarian]

OMG! In all the media puzzlement at the new phenomenon known as "daps", they missed Obama slapping his wife on the ass!

:lol :lol :lol Holy shit.:lol :lol

 

[Amir0x]

... what on earth are you talking about? There is a rather large difference between saying "the media is being overwhelmingly positive on Obama"and "why isn't the fact he's some secret muslim communist america hating scum bag getting more coverage." The media is fawning over Obama, I think most people could pretty obviously see that.

I think the media has their up periods and down periods. It's neither overtly pro Obama, or overly anti Obama. The thing people need to realize is the media wants good stories. When Obama was being nailed to the wall on like fifty eight different controversies in one mouth, whether small or big, the media was so "anti Obama."

But right now the great story is the history Obama made. Right now the media is "fawning" over him because let's face it, it's a pretty interesting story about his rise.

THAT is great news to watch. Just like the media trying ceaselessly to drag the Hillary vs. Obama race on forever was considered a GREAT STORY.

You of all people should understand the market provides what the market wants.

 

[Tamanon]

Well they did, especially the one day that Obama's name came up in ancillary testimony, they stopped covering it once they realized that it wasn't a story.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Holy crap, I didn't see that until you mentioned it.

Heh.

My mom noticed it right off the bat.

She thought it showed just how physically comfortable they are with one another.

She expects plenty of fucking in the Obama house when the girls are away.

 

[Tamanon]

Plus they probably just did a pre-rally "pep" session

 

[GhaleonEB]

Holy crap, I didn't see that until you mentioned it.

Ass slap-gate.

 

[Gaborn]

I think the media has their up periods and down periods. It's neither overtly pro Obama, or overly anti Obama. The thing people need to realize is the media wants good stories. When Obama was being nailed to the wall on like fifty eight different controversies in one mouth, whether small or big, the media was so "anti Obama."

But right now the great story is the history Obama made. Right now the media is "fawning" over him because let's face it, it's a pretty interesting story about his rise.

THAT is great news to watch. Just like the media trying ceaselessly to drag the Hillary vs. Obama race on forever was considered a GREAT STORY.

You of all people should understand the market provides what the market wants.

Oh absolutely. I can't blame the media for covering Obama right now (say the last couple weeks) and if that's all it was and prior to that it was pretty balanced I wouldn't have mentioned my amazement (keep in mind for context this started after the story about Obama's IQ and my amazement at the continued level of the praise, as well as the volume). What has surprised me is how completely sustained it's been, it hasn't just been a brief uptick, the coverage has been pretty intense for months, really since Iowa.

 

[Ephemeris]

Heh.

My mom noticed it right off the bat.

She thought it showed just how physically comfortable they are with one another.

She expects plenty of fucking in the Obama house when the girls are away.

:lol :lol

 

[Killthee]

The press is so pissed Obama and Clinton dodged them. They staked out all the wrong places.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/btsc.welch.obama.press/index.html

In their indignation, CNN is sounding like the paparazzi. :lol

:lol

I love the article's title. "Behind the Scenes: Obama press 'hijacked' during Clinton meeting"

 

[AniHawk]

Heh.

My mom noticed it right off the bat.

She thought it showed just how physically comfortable they are with one another.

She expects plenty of fucking in the Obama house when the girls are away.

What a fun, sexy time for them.

 

[Amir0x]

Oh absolutely. I can't blame the media for covering Obama right now (say the last couple weeks) and if that's all it was and prior to that it was pretty balanced I wouldn't have mentioned my amazement (keep in mind for context this started after the story about Obama's IQ and my amazement at the continued level of the praise, as well as the volume). What has surprised me is how completely sustained it's been, it hasn't just been a brief uptick, the coverage has been pretty intense for months, really since Iowa.

My argument is that it HASN'T been consistently positive. He went through at least two pretty horrible months of almost straight negative news.

 

[CowboyAstronaut]

:lol :lol :lol Holy shit.:lol :lol

CNN didn't miss it

They all pointed out the day after.

CNN even shows right as Obama hits her behind from the rear view :lol

 

[Gaborn]

My argument is that it HASN'T been consistently positive. He went through at least two pretty horrible months of almost straight negative news.

Eh, he took a bit of flack for the Wright coverage, but even during the worst of it I'd say it was only REALLY bad for about 2 weeks, beyond that most of the networks gave it maybe a 5 minute update every hour or so, a segment here or there. 2 months is a pretty big exaggeration, except maybe on FOX news I think, I mostly watch MSNBC and CNN.

 

[RubxQub]

Eh, he took a bit of flack for the Wright coverage, but even during the worst of it I'd say it was only REALLY bad for about 2 weeks, beyond that most of the networks gave it maybe a 5 minute update every hour or so, a segment here or there. 2 months is a pretty big exaggeration, except maybe on FOX news I think, I mostly watch MSNBC and CNN.

Dude...it was the only news about Obama for about 2 months. THE ONLY NEWS.

I don't know how you missed it, but you are really really wrong.

 

[CowboyAstronaut]

Eh, he took a bit of flack for the Wright coverage, but even during the worst of it I'd say it was only REALLY bad for about 2 weeks, beyond that most of the networks gave it maybe a 5 minute update every hour or so, a segment here or there. 2 months is a pretty big exaggeration, except maybe on FOX news I think, I mostly watch MSNBC and CNN.

Obama was getting pounded pretty constantly.

 

[Frank the Great]

holy shit. obama is a fan of yuengling?

that's my favorite beer. can this guy get any cooler?

 

[Gaborn]

Dude...it was the only news about Obama for about 2 months. THE ONLY NEWS.

I don't know how you missed it, but you are really really wrong.

I must've totally missed it then because... I honestly didn't see it that much for that long, again, I thought it was a bad two weeks then it mostly became an occasional story, covered here or there but not constantly.

 

[typhonsentra]

1500... really isn't much coverage, when most of that is the AP carrying the same story 500 times.

And no, the media didn't cover the trial "pretty aggressively" they barely mentioned it on the periphery of their coverage. They mentioned that his name was mentioned one day, they mentioned his conviction,and they mentioned that Rezko had some tie to Obama (that I don't specifically remember) that's... not aggressive coverage.

There was coverage every day for the first week at the least. People only lost interest shortly after that incident where he was named that you mentioned, but after that since his name didn't come up anymore they ran out of angles to cover it. It's that simple.

By the way, a lot of the older stories about Rezko seem to of been scrubbed from the various sites. CNN's Political Ticker had dozens of Rezko related stories back in February/March but now all that remains on their site are articles about the confrontation with the reporters the day before the Texas primary and another about this week's conviction. There were more, believe me I followed the trial closely back when the media was connecting it to Obama.

What really creeps me out is that there are people ke Gaborn who seriously think the media has been in the bag for Obama since the beginnign and someone missed pretty much all coverage of him early-March up until mid-May. Did you all hibernate through Wright, Ayers, flag pens, Bittergate, Farrakhan, and Pfleger? It's gotta be frustrating for his campaign, he's probably gone through more scrutiny than any politician in modern history yet it's still not considered enough.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Obama was getting pounded pretty constantly.

 

[CowboyAstronaut]

I hear McCain and his wife are suppose to show an improved pound in the coming week.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Obama was getting pounded pretty constantly.

From what I've heard so is Michelle.

 

[Frank the Great]

I hear McCain and his wife are suppose to show an improved pound in the coming week.

pounds you can believe in

 

[CowboyAstronaut]

pounds you can believe in

A non-naive, experienced pound.

They even showed multiple times with Michelle rubbing Obama down while on stage. CNN doesn't miss a thing.

 

[Gaborn]

There was coverage every day for the first week at the least. People only lost interest shortly after that incident where he was named that you mentioned, but after that since his name didn't come up anymore they ran out of angles to cover it. It's that simple.

By the way, a lot of the older stories about Rezko seem to of been scrubbed from the various sites. CNN's Political Ticker had dozens of Rezko related stories back in February/March but now all that remains on their site are articles about the confrontation with the reporters the day before the Texas primary.

Ok, first of all... there'd be no point in "scrubbing" their archives of Rezko stories, so that... just sounds paranoid, though if you're sure you can try running the URL through Archive.org and their cached pages, occasionally someone does scrub a story and it'll be retrievable there.

I think that your "coverage every day for a week" comment makes a lot more sense though. It got a few minutes a day for about a week, I don't disagree with that, but I was objecting to your "aggressively covered" statement. If it wasn't mentioned at all I probably wouldn't have heard about it, but it was never treated too seriously I think.

 

[electricpirate]

I must've totally missed it then because... I honestly didn't see it that much for that long, again, I thought it was a bad two weeks then it mostly became an occasional story, covered here or there but not constantly.

It was only the single most covered event of the primary season.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a..._pastor_dominated_primary_coverage/?page=full

That was followed by Superdelegate comments, then bitter gate. So of the top 3 stories, obama had 2 negative stories.

 

[thekad]

One would think you guys would get bored of this constant back and forth. Gaborn isn't budging.

 

[Triumph]

I'm going to guess that Gaborn has trouble understanding why Obama isn't exposed as the dangerous communist he is.

I guess he's getting talking points from Tom DeLay.

 

[Triumph]

One would think you guys would get bored of this constant back and forth. Gaborn isn't budging.

Typical Libertopian tactics.

 

[Gaborn]

It was only the single most covered event of the primary season.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a..._pastor_dominated_primary_coverage/?page=full

That was followed by Superdelegate comments, then bitter gate. So of the top 3 stories, obama had 2 negative stories.

"The Rev. Wright story had legs and continued to be a significant story for weeks at a time and for two weeks almost eclipsed everything else being talked about in the campaign," said Mark Jurkowitz, associate director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

So... I was basically right, two bad weeks, and less coverage after that?

And, Triumph - You're just quoting Hikotage trying to smear me, I never compared Obama to a communist, if anything I have a lot of respect for him, but the media is still being ridiculous. I AM however disturbed that you would compare me to DeLay. *shudder* Couldn't you compare me to ANYONE else?

 

[electricpirate]

In three of thenext four weeks, it was the second-ranked story, narrowly trailing the Clinton "sniper fire" blowup in one of those weeks, and it filled the six-week lull in the Democratic calendar between the Mississippi primary on March 11 and the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania.

In three of the next four weeks, it was the second-ranked story, narrowly trailing the Clinton "sniper fire" blowup in one of those weeks, and it filled the six-week lull in the Democratic calendar between the Mississippi primary on March 11 and the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania.

Obama's erstwhile spiritual adviser was again overwhelming the coverage, the subject of 42 percent of campaign stories for the week after appearing on "Bill Moyers Journal" on PBS and, in inflammatory remarks at the National Press Club in Washington,

Nope, you weren't right.

 

[RiskyChris]

Guys there's another view that clearly shows him patting her above the ass.

 

[AniHawk]

What really creeps me out is that there are people ke Gaborn who seriously think the media has been in the bag for Obama since the beginnign and someone missed pretty much all coverage of him early-March up until mid-May. Did you all hibernate through Wright, Ayers, flag pens, Bittergate, Farrakhan, and Pfleger? It's gotta be frustrating for his campaign, he's probably gone through more scrutiny than any politician in modern history yet it's still not considered enough.

When I went to see Chris Wallace speak, one of the questions asked was, "Why do you think CNN and MSNBC are so in the bag for Obama?"

MSNBC I can understand. CNN? Really? Really?!

Unfortunately they didn't pull my question asking his opinion on the transformation of pundit to paparazzi.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Guys there's another view that clearly shows him patting her above the ass.

So captivating was that bump — captured from every angle, and shown repeatedly since then from same — that not much mind was given to the affectionate pat Obama followed up with as his wife left the stage, which ETP earlier called an "ass-pat" but which closer scrutiny reveals hit in that demure place on where lower back meets buttock. Aw.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/06/obama-fist-bump-rocks-the_n_105490.html

Curses. Smack that toosh, Barack.

 

[Gaborn]

Nope, you weren't right.

Interesting, but misleading in a couple ways. First, it's worth noting how much coverage we're talking about here:

Excluding the horse race-type coverage of tactics and strategy, the Obama-Wright story accounted for 6.4 percent of the campaign coverage of the media outlets surveyed between Jan. 6 and May 4. The next closest campaign story, at 1.6 percent, was the running story about the role of so-called superdelegates in determining the Democratic nomination, followed at 1.5 percent by Obama's remarks in April at a San Francisco fund-raiser that white working-class and small-town voters were "bitter" and "cling to guns or religion" in frustration.

So, 6.4% of the campaign coverage is Wright (note, that's not 6.4% of all news stories). Second, let's look a little closer about WHAT they were measuring.

Within days after Clinton trounced Obama in Pennsylvania, Obama's erstwhile spiritual adviser was again overwhelming the coverage, the subject of 42 percent of campaign stories for the week after appearing on "Bill Moyers Journal" on PBS and, in inflammatory remarks at the National Press Club in Washington, praising Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. At that point, Obama denounced Wright and broke with him.

When video excerpts of past sermons by Wright surfaced in March, 37 percent of the campaign stories that week were about him and his relationship with Obama, a congregant for 20 years at Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side, the survey found.

Please, note the numbers here. For 2 weeks of the 5 month period covered in this study, an average of 39.5% of of the media coverage was about reverend wright. In TOTAL, the story was 6.4% of the campaign coverage, over that 5 month period. So, 2 weeks or 1/10th of the campaign it's 39.5% of the coverage, another week (without the percentage given it's #2) and TOTAL over the story it's 6.4%? Come on, that shows a sharp decline not including the 2-3 weeks.

 

[Goreomedy]

Curses. Smack that toosh, Barack.

Yeah, the other angle shows him simply touching the small of her back. It's also a better view of the fist pound. We need more pound gifs!

 

[Tamanon]

Yeah, the other angle shows him simply touching the small of her back. It's also a better view of the fist pound. We need more pound gifs!

I believe the technical term I learned for the fist pound is "Hizbollah Fist Spear"

 

[Stinkles]

Wait, what?

Someone [Lieberman] who doesn't follow the party line is a disgrace to our system of democracy???

:lol .

Um, he's a disgrace because he's a fucking liar and a parasite. I have nothing against his policy - and everything against his dishonesty and naked hypocrisy. He is riding on two sets of coat tails to further a weak personal agenda. And to top it all, he now uses Fox News grammar.

 

[demon]

Gaborn's just being a stubborn ass about it. He makes a stupid argument, people bring up examples that show it's bs. He nitpicks about examples, people prove him wrong. He ignores proof, continues bitching about how little negative sensationalist bullshit news reporting there as on Obama. This guy's a joke.

I watched the news during two or three breaks at work every week day since the beginning of April, and I couldn't count the number of times I heard them yapping about Rev Wright. Whether Gaborn was aware of it or chooses to acknowledge it or not, it was an assload of coverage on a stupid, worthless story, and gaborn wanted more of it. Welcome to my ignore list, asshat.

 

[Tamanon]

Gaborn is just emulating our President. Guess he really was a supporter after all

 

[Gaborn]

Gaborn's just being a stubborn ass about it. He makes a stupid argument, people bring up examples that show it's bs. He nitpicks about examples, people prove him wrong. He ignores proof, continues bitching about how little negative sensationalist bullshit news reporting there as on Obama. This guy's a joke.

I watched the news during two or three breaks at work every week day since the beginning of April, and I couldn't count the number of times I heard them yapping about Rev Wright. Whether Gaborn was aware of it or chooses to acknowledge it or not, it was an assload of coverage on a stupid, worthless story, and gaborn wanted more of it. Welcome to my ignore list, asshat.

1. BE RESPECTFUL. I know that neoGAF, being a Internet Den where its users smoke hopium frequently, there is a largely disproportionate amount of Obama supporters than any other group. This does not mean you can be vindictive, condescending or insulting to people who are Republicans and support McCain. McCain supporters are not "inherently stupid", they're not "ignoring the facts." They've simply decided they appreciate his values more than your candidate. Act like an adult and utilize respect when dealing with the opposing factions at neoGAF. Yes, even to Libertarians.

I don't think I've been calling you names, I'll thank you to treat me the same way.

 

[electricpirate]

Yes, of course the story dropped, that doesn't change the fact rev-wright got 1/4 the coverage of McCain. Also, besides those three weeks where it broke 35% it was the top story for at least another six weeks.

The story had more legs than any other this political season.

 

[typhonsentra]

I think my problem is that they make it a huge pain to search for old content on their site. Same goes for Google, look at what I get when I search all dates for "Source: CNN wright obama"

http://news.google.com/archivesearc...bama&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8

 

[Kaeru]

Gaborn's just being a stubborn ass about it. He makes a stupid argument, people bring up examples that show it's bs. He nitpicks about examples, people prove him wrong. He ignores proof, continues bitching about how little negative sensationalist bullshit news reporting there as on Obama. This guy's a joke.

I watched the news during two or three breaks at work every week day since the beginning of April, and I couldn't count the number of times I heard them yapping about Rev Wright. Whether Gaborn was aware of it or chooses to acknowledge it or not, it was an assload of coverage on a stupid, worthless story, and gaborn wanted more of it. Welcome to my ignore list, asshat.

LoL

I live in Sweden and I know who Rezko is, not to mention the stuff that has been reported about Wright.
Gaborn is 5-10 posts away from my ignorebutton.

 

[Arde5643]

I've pretty much stop checking Gaborn's posts - maybe I should just start ignoring him.

Can you guys stop quoting him?

It's a pain to see the exact same thing reiterated over and over and over again. Pretty please?

 

[Gaborn]

Yes, of course the story dropped, that doesn't change the fact rev-wright got 1/4 the coverage of McCain. Also, besides those three weeks where it broke 35% it was the top story for at least another six weeks.

The story had more legs than any other this political season.

Than any single story? Absolutely. It was still only 10% of Obama's specific coverage, and it was still only a tiny percentage of the total coverage. What I'm saying is it wasn't this huge story or the "only" story about Obama for months, it was 10% of his coverage, except for a few weeks and then we moved on. 90% of his coverage wasn't about that story, and even if it has more legs than any other story it doesn't mean it was the major story you're saying it is. Being larger than any one story is irrelevant to how big the story is on an individual level. That is, by itself it wasn't a huge story, it was simply the biggest story of a busy campaign season.

 

[scorcho]

hey Gaborn, why don't you ever back up your conjecture with data? 10%, 90%? which donkey are we pulling these figures out of.

 

[typhonsentra]

This is what I get when I search for "Clinton+Tuzla"

http://search.cnn.com/search?query=clinton+tuzla&type=news&sortBy=date&intl=false

The old articles might be there for this one too but... I don't know how to find them.

 

[Gaborn]

hey Gaborn, why don't you ever back up your conjecture with data? 10%, 90%? which donkey are we pulling these figures out of.

Welll, I looked at the numbers in the story that was posted... One thing I didn't mention in the numbers:

Over the last five months of the campaign through June 1, Obama received significantly more news coverage than the other candidates. He was a major figure in 63.5 percent of campaign stories, compared with 54 percent for his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, who started the contest last year as the odds-on favorite. Both Democrats received more than double the coverage accorded presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, who was a prime subject in 26 percent of stories, the survey also found.

Take that with the figure:

Excluding the horse race-type coverage of tactics and strategy, the Obama-Wright story accounted for 6.4 percent of the campaign coverage of the media outlets surveyed between Jan. 6 and May 4.

Do the math.