Support NeoGAF

[Kaeru]

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.

You are basically writing the same thing over and over again, are you aware of that?
Just because your post is longer doesn't make your weak argument any stronger, my friend.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Do the math.

Do the homework. You know it's not me!

 

[Gaborn]

You are basically writing the same thing over and over again, are you aware of that?
Just because your post is longer doesn't make your weak argument any stronger, my friend.

So... are you disputing the numbers posted in the story that attempted to show me I was wrong?

 

[RiskyChris]

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.

10% is a huge percentage of time to be taken up by a worthless story.

 

[Mumei]

So... are you disputing the numbers posted in the story that attempted to show me I was wrong?

You do realize that that is a huge amount of coverage for a single story, given the 24 hour news cycle... right?

 

[Gaborn]

10% is a huge percentage of time to be taken up by a worthless story.

But a lot less than "constantly for months" Especially when that's just the candidate's coverage and the actual airtime as a campaign story was 6.4%.

I stand by my statement, it was bad for about 2 weeks (as the article says) but beyond that coverage dropped sharply.

Mumei - and YOU realize that when you have 39.5% of the campaign coverage over a 2 week span and at the end of 5 months the coverage it got was 6.4% there's a SIGNIFICANT drop well below that 6.4% for a long while, especially if you factor in the "2nd place story" spikes it got for a couple weeks.

 

[Ventrue]

I stand by my statement, it was bad for about 2 weeks (as the article says) but beyond that coverage dropped sharply.

How many weeks of coverage about this sensationalist story with little to do with actual politics would've been appropriate?

We should focus on things like policies; things we can have an intelligent discourse on and weigh the pros and cons of. Not overblown issues with -gate on the end.

 

[Triumph]

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



Take that with the figure:

Do the math.

The math that tells me that it received FOUR TIMES AS MUCH COVERAGE as any other story this primary season?

 

[Gaborn]

How many weeks of coverage about this sensationalist story with little to do with actual politics would've been appropriate?

Hmmm that's hard to say. I think it deserved some coverage, certainly the people who advise a president and who influence their thinking deserve to be known, but you're right, it was probably overcovered during that two week span. I don't think 6.4% of overall coverage is that unreasonable though.

Triumph - yes, the math that tells you that means there were a LOT of stories this primary season if the largest story of the season got only 6.4% of coverage. I wonder, by contrast, how much coverage the swift boaters got? (and yes, as I've stated, that was a truly useless smear story)

 

[GhaleonEB]

The math that tells me that it received FOUR TIMES AS MUCH COVERAGE as any other story this primary season?

Take your logic and get out of the thread. Gaborn is having none of it.

 

[Gaborn]

Take your logic and get out of the thread. Gaborn is having none of it.

Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is illogical is why most people who don't support obama won't venture into these threads.

 

[Triumph]

Hmmm that's hard to say. I think it deserved some coverage, certainly the people who advise a president and who influence their thinking deserve to be known, but you're right, it was probably overcovered during that two week span. I don't think 6.4% of overall coverage is that unreasonable though.

Triumph - yes, the math that tells you that means there were a LOT of stories this primary season if the largest story of the season got only 6.4% of coverage. I wonder, by contrast, how much coverage the swift boaters got? (and yes, as I've stated, that was a truly useless smear story)

Lies, damn lies, and statistics my friend. I can spin it anyway you want it. Sure there were plenty of stories but answer me this:

1) Should this story have gotten the most play of any story?
2) If so, should it have gotten FOUR TIMES AS MUCH coverage as any other story?

Try to answer those questions with a straight face.

 

[Mandark]

I'm not sure what exactly the argument is that's going on and don't feel like backtracking to figure out. But that 6.4% figure includes January, February, and a chunk of March before the story broke.

 

[typhonsentra]

Take that with the figure:

Do the math.

.... Wright didn't begin until slightly after the Mississippi primary, probably March 11. Meaning there'd be no way for them to cover it 65 (More than half) of the 120 days your study tracks, barring psychic reporters (Which in itself would be a story). This means over 1/8th of all campaign reporting after the story broke was about Wright for a full two months.

 

[electricpirate]

You're argument that the story takes up only %10 of Obama's total is pretty bunk, considering it broke in mid march, and this list is going back to pre-iowa. If you look at the percentage of time the story has taken since it broke it would be higher. assume what, 15-20% at least in 3 months.

And you know what? That's a lot of fuckin coverage.

 

[Gaborn]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics my friend. I can spin it anyway you want it. Sure there were plenty of stories but answer me this:

1) Should this story have gotten the most play of any story?
2) If so, should it have gotten FOUR TIMES AS MUCH coverage as any other story?

Try to answer those questions with a straight face.

To your second question, no, I think some stories were overcovered (like wright during those 2 weeks) and some stories were undercovered (I would've been interested in a little more coverage of Ron Paul for example, but also coverage of the Iseman scandal for McCain, as well, I think it would've been interesting if there was more interest in following the various campaigns spouses a little more closely, that's a nice human interest story that probably didn't get enough play because Clinton was in the race and it'd be awkward for the media covering him again when they've already said just about everything they need to about the man, and yet not covering him equally would be unfair.

To your first question... I don't know. It probably was one of the top 2-3 stories, but I'm not sure which story I would've covered more than it.

Actually that's a decent point, that Wright didn't receive play until March, but keep in mind there were rumblings even a year ago (even if it was from a biased Fox news show interviewing a World Net Daily columnist whom they decline to identify as such) about this story.

 

[scorcho]

dunno, i'd personally rather have Gaborn provide the burden of proof for his claim instead of parsing a dubious media blurb without any methodology (i notice how you don't question methodology when an argument works in your favor) and with hasty generalizations.

 

[Mumei]

Mumei - and YOU realize that when you have 39.5% of the campaign coverage over a 2 week span and at the end of 5 months the coverage it got was 6.4% there's a SIGNIFICANT drop well below that 6.4% for a long while, especially if you factor in the "2nd place story" spikes it got for a couple weeks.

And you might have a point with that if the story in question weren't covered more than any other story [with regards to this primary season], or if this were the only negative story about Obama, and the remaining 90% of his coverage was "overwhelmingly positive."

Instead, there were a number of stories which were "negative" for Obama, and what you are presenting is a false dichotomy. On the Project for Excellence in Journalism's website, you can find a graph (ooooh):

Among other findings:

* The year 2008 started off extremely well for Obama. Positive assertions commanded 77% of the narrative studied about him from January 1 -13. By March 9, the figure had dropped to 53%. During this time statements concerning his inexperience and youth more than doubled in prevalence.

I await more prevaricating. =|

 

[RiskyChris]

To your first question... I don't know. It probably was one of the top 2-3 stories, but I'm not sure which story I would've covered more than it.

How about not cover it at all?

 

[grandjedi6]

Jim Webb will be on the Daily Show Monday. Thus continues Webb's "I'm totally not going for the VP spot. Honest!" tour

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I think it deserved some coverage, certainly the people who advise a president and who influence their thinking deserve to be known, but you're right, it was probably overcovered during that two week span. I don't think 6.4% of overall coverage is that unreasonable though.

Yeah, but to me that's just kind of spin to support the media's ability to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It was a story in the media because the media made it a story. If Wright was a top adviser to Obama, I'd understand. If any of those clips had cuts to Obama in the crowd greeting them with positive reaction, or Obama stepping up on the altar to fistbump him after giving them, I could see it.

But at the end of the day, it was just a former pastor who happened to have some sway in the community delivering controversial sermons. Those are a dime a dozen amongst many passionate religious figures. Any rational person would have realized that, despite whether or not it was the wisest decision to associate with a man such as Wright, he clearly wouldn't be advising Obama on any policy issues. It was just more fuel for the "hey, remember the lapel pin nonsense? Well, check this out!" crowd.

Also, McCain had his own pastor problems, with incendiary remarks from a man whose endorsement he solicited that were far more grave than Wright's, and that got significantly less coverage than Wright.

 

[Kaeru]

About the Wright controversy, it's funny to see how McCain came to Obamas defense while the Dogg did not:

In an interview with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on March 25, 2008, Hillary Clinton commented on Obama's attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ, stating, "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." Later the same day, during a press conference, Clinton spoke on her personal preference in a pastor: "I think given all we have heard and seen, [Wright] would not have been my pastor." A spokesperson for the Obama campaign asserted that Clinton's comments were part of a "transparent effort to distract attention away from the story she made up about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia" the prior week.[36] Weeks later during the Pennsylvania debate in Philadelphia, Clinton said, "For Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been just intolerable for me."[37]

Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain defended Obama when it came to allegations of guilt by association, saying, "I think that when people support you, it doesn't mean that you support everything they say. Obviously, those words and those statements are statements that none of us would associate ourselves with, and I don't believe that Senator Obama would support any of those, as well."[38]

 

[GhaleonEB]

Jim Webb will be on the Daily Show Monday. Thus continues Webb's "I'm totally not going for the VP spot. Honest!" tour

He's promoting his book.

 

[Gaborn]

dunno, i'd personally rather have Gaborn provide the burden of proof for his claim instead of parsing a dubious media blurb without any methodology (i notice how you don't question methodology when an argument works in your favor) and with hasty generalizations.

That dubious media blurb was provided by someone else trying to disagree with me. It says right in it exactly what I said.

 

[Gaborn]

And you might have a point with that if the story in question weren't covered more than any other story [with regards to this primary season], or if this were the only negative story about Obama, and the remaining 90% of his coverage was "overwhelmingly positive."

Instead, there were a number of stories which were "negative" for Obama, and what you are presenting is a false dichotomy. On the Project for Excellence in Journalism's website, you can find a graph (ooooh):

I await more prevaricating. =|

So... that chart is supposed to disagree with my claim that Obama gets the most positive coverage of any candidate?

 

[Kaeru]

So... that chart is supposed to disagree with my claim that Obama gets the most positive coverage of any candidate?

No it's supposed to show that you take numbers from your ass, and in an extent your arguments as well.

 

[ratcliffja]

I hate to spoil it, but they showed other angles of that and all he did was pat her on the lower back.

 

[Gaborn]

No it's supposed to show that you take numbers from your ass, and in an extent your arguments as well.

I took them from an article someone else provided! Back up your claim that I'm inventing numbers please.

 

[Mandark]

I'll say this about Obama. His media coverage has driven up my opinion of him. Not the positive stuff, but the negative.

Basically all the attacks on Obama have fallen into three categories:

1) The elaborate bank shot. Wright, Farrakhan, Ayers, Brzezinski, Malley, Power. Hell, every foreign policy wonk associated with him has been accused of anti-Semitism.

2) The "gaffe" that almost requires deliberate misunderstanding. OMG, he said soldiers are wasting their lives! OMG, he said Reagan was awesome! OMG, he said he'd invade Pakistan! He said he doesn't feel patriotism!

3) Just plain made up stuff. He's a Muslim. His wife sounds like a character in Undercover Brother. He grabs his balls and spits during the national anthem.


I figure the Clinton campaign and Republican party have had more than enough time and all the incentives in the world to find something more substantive than this. Hell, almost anyone in the news media would die to break a major story that brought him or any other candidate low.

He can't be that bad if this is the worst they can come up with.

 

[scorcho]

That dubious media blurb was provided by someone else trying to disagree with me. It says right in it exactly what I said.

your usual MO is to brandy into threads with a declarative statement that makes base generalizations that rely on ad ignorantiam, false dilemmas and gross ecological fallacies.

opinions are fine, but stop packaging yours as empirical facts.

 

[Gaborn]

your usual MO is to brandy into threads with a declarative statement that makes base generalizations that rely on ad ignorantiam, false dilemmas and gross ecological fallacies.

opinions are fine, but stop packaging yours as empirical facts.

I think the data that has been provided has backed up my opinions pretty well. And I think from the first I came into this thread saying in my opinion the media has been overwhelmingly positive on Obama. 69% of media coverage being positive (especially when compared to 48% of McCain's) is... pretty overwhelming.

 

[reilo]

I think the data that has been provided has backed up my opinions pretty well. And I think from the first I came into this thread saying in my opinion the media has been overwhelmingly positive on Obama. 69% of media coverage being positive (especially when compared to 48% of McCain's) is... pretty overwhelming.

Funny how you so easily ignore Hillary's positive media coverage and just run straight to McCain's. 69% to 67% in positive coverage for Obama versus Clinton. TWO PERCENT.

Besides, what the FUCK has McCain done to warrant any positive coverage? Name his top 5 positive moments since becoming the presumptive nominee many, many months ago.

Then compare it to his top 5 worst moments.

Go on, I'll wait.

 

[Mandark]

You think the media's been overwhelmingly positive about Hillary?

Cause her bar compared to McCain's has been pretty... overwhelming.

 

[Kaeru]

I took them from an article someone else provided! Back up your claim that I'm inventing numbers please.

Back up your own fucking claims instead, if you use numbers then give us a source for it.
Your rhetoric is appalling to say the least.
You claim some shit, you use numbers, and you don't source them.
Then when I say you are inventing stuff you ask met to back up my claim?

Jesus tapdancing christ.

 

[scorcho]

I think the data that has been provided has backed up my opinions pretty well. And I think from the first I came into this thread saying in my opinion the media has been overwhelmingly positive on Obama. 69% of media coverage being positive (especially when compared to 48% of McCain's) is... pretty overwhelming.

so essentially you dismiss exhaustive research disproving your opinion (voter ID thread), but don't question a dubious study that kinda-sorta agrees with your view?

edit: i miss APF

 

[Triumph]

Jim Webb will be on the Daily Show Monday. Thus continues Webb's "I'm totally not going for the VP spot. Honest!" tour

His book isn't going to sell itself, you know!

Spoiler

He actually gave some sort of half answer about the VP thing before or after the rally he and Kaine did with Obama the other day.

 

[Gaborn]

Funny how you so easily ignore Hillary's positive media coverage and just run straight to McCain's. 69% to 67% in positive coverage for Obama versus Clinton. TWO PERCENT.

Besides, what the FUCK has McCain done to warrant any positive coverage? Name his top 5 positive moments since becoming the presumptive nominee many, many months ago.

Then compare it to his top 5 worst moments.

Go on, I'll wait.

I don't know what McCain has done to warrant positive coverage much, the media's mostly ignored him, Though I'm not completely ignoring Hillary, you're right I didn't address her coverage vs Obama. What major negative story has Hillary had? She had Hsu, she had the fake southern accent thing, she had the race baiting she and her husband did in south carolina, none of those stories had much more than a few days coverage. for 2 solid weeks Obama was savaged by the media (and to a lesser degree a bit after that) and his number only dropped to 69%. Imagine if you will the percentage of positive coverage Obama would get without Wright. I'd do the math for you but I'd probably be accused of pulling the numbers out of my ass again.

Scorcho - I dismiss evidence from that thread based on the fact that it's impossible to prove voter fraud is or isn't occurring if you have no way to verify that a person is who they say they are.

 

[scorcho]

Webb would make women already smarting from Clinton's demise vent even louder about Obama's purported misogyny.

why can't Bloomberg be a strong woman? from Florida? or Pennsylvania?

sigh.

 

[Mumei]

So... that chart is supposed to disagree with my claim that Obama gets the most positive coverage of any candidate?

I had hopes that you would have the ability to go to the website under your own steam and find the page yourself. The more important fact is that Obama and Clinton's coverage was essentially identical in terms of how positive it was overall. McCain's was less positive but if you had taken the time to go to the website, you might have read this:

For McCain, one master narrative stands out above all in the coverage—that he is not a true or reliable conservative. More than five in 10 of all the assertions studied about McCain conveyed that idea, about six times as many as the number of assertions rebutting it. While this narrative—not conservative enough—might have been a problem for him in the primary race, it is harder to evaluate its implications for the general election. If McCain is seen as a maverick, someone not tied to President Bush, it will likely enhance his standing among independents and moderate swing Democrats. Yet lack of conservative credentials could also dampen turnout among some of the GOP base.

PEJ counted assertions that McCain was not a "true conservative" as a negative in the context of the Republican presidential primary. However, this is decidedly not a negative right now, if he is trying to convince independent and disaffected Democratic voters that he is separated enough from George Bush.

And the entire study is about assertions, not about a percentage of stories.

 

[reilo]

I don't know what McCain has done to warrant positive coverage much, the media's mostly ignored him, Though I'm not completely ignoring Hillary, you're right I didn't address her coverage vs Obama. What major negative story has Hillary had? She had Hsu, she had the fake southern accent thing, she had the race baiting she and her husband did in south carolina, none of those stories had much more than a few days coverage. for 2 solid weeks Obama was savaged by the media (and to a lesser degree a bit after that) and his number only dropped to 69%. Imagine if you will the percentage of positive coverage Obama would get without Wright. I'd do the math for you but I'd probably be accused of pulling the numbers out of my ass again.

Wow. Do you even watch news television?

Hillary's top 3 fucked up moments:

Bosnia
RFK
Ferraro

None of those come even close to any of Obama's negatives. You are completely and utterly delusional.

 

[Gaborn]

Wow. Do you even watch news television?

Hillary's top 3 fucked up moments:

Bosnia
RFK
Ferraro

None of those come even close to any of Obama's negatives. You are completely and utterly delusional.

Ok, I forgot Bosnia, you're right. I don't think Ferraro was that big for HER, it made Ferraro look terrible though. The RFK thing... eh, it happened too late to get much play in the media. Though, as you say, none of them come even close to Obama's negatives... yet Obama got more positive coverage?

 

[RiskyChris]

Ok, I forgot Bosnia, you're right. I don't think Ferraro was that big for HER, it made Ferraro look terrible though. The RFK thing... eh, it happened too late to get much play in the media. Though, as you say, none of them come even close to Obama's negatives... yet Obama got more positive coverage?

What are you trying to say, that the media is biased towards Obama?

Maybe Obama ran a really great campaign, and the positive coverage was a result of that.

 

[Gaborn]

What are you trying to say, that the media is biased towards Obama?

Maybe Obama ran a really great campaign, and the positive coverage was a result of that.

Well, 2 pages ago (or was it 3?) I responded to a post about Obama's IQ being potentially the highest of any president (with the Washington Post assuming he'll win) by remarking how consistently overwhelmingly positive the media coverage was, and how unusual I found it. From there it's been mostly assertions that I'm not watching the news and data showing that the reverend wright thing was big for 2 weeks (as I claimed) with less coverage after that. In any case though it's getting late so I'm probably going to head off soon.

 

[scorcho]

What are you trying to say, that the media is biased towards Obama?

Maybe Obama ran a really great campaign, and the positive coverage was a result of that.

or that the narrative of a young, charismatic up-and-comer beating the establishment nominee was a great angle to sell papers and draw ratings...

 

[Macam]

Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is illogical is why most people who don't support obama won't venture into these threads.

I can only speak for myself, but a large part of the reason I don't venture into these types of threads much is because it tends to draw in posters like you who end up defending some fact devoid position ad nauseam, which winds up burying a good portion of any relevant news or commentary to the topic. At the current pace of things, you're not really helping.

 

[reilo]

Well, 2 pages ago (or was it 3?) I responded to a post about Obama's IQ being potentially the highest of any president (with the Washington Post assuming he'll win) by remarking how consistently overwhelmingly positive the media coverage was, and how unusual I found it. From there it's been mostly assertions that I'm not watching the news and data showing that the reverend wright thing was big for 2 weeks (as I claimed) with less coverage after that. In any case though it's getting late so I'm probably going to head off soon.

The Wright thing was bigger than just two weeks. The first part of it lasted a good two weeks on its own, and then when Wright gave his public interviews, it spiraled into a month long media attack. This all happened during the three week break before Pennsylvania, so there was literally nothing else to talk about.

The entire lead-up to Penn was if Wright was going to severely hurt Obama.

 

[Gaborn]

The Wright thing was bigger than just two weeks. The first part of it lasted a good two weeks on its own, and then when Wright gave his public interviews, it spiraled into a month long media attack. This all happened during the three week break before Pennsylvania, so there was literally nothing else to talk about.

We've been over this. According to that story that was posted the media heavily covered it for 2 weeks, then it slipped significantly down after that. I'm not saying it was ignored after 2 weeks but the coverage greatly lessened after that point.

Macam - I wouldn't have continued with this if I wasn't being constantly criticized and critiqued for holding an opinion that I think has born out pretty well. Of course, posts like demon's are why I was myself less than interested in venturing into this thread. I mean, seriously, who wants to have a discussion in that kind of environment? and then people wonder why people get defensive.

 

[Dan]

I think the data that has been provided has backed up my opinions pretty well. And I think from the first I came into this thread saying in my opinion the media has been overwhelmingly positive on Obama. 69% of media coverage being positive (especially when compared to 48% of McCain's) is... pretty overwhelming.

Is it really the media's fault that McCain, running in the shadow of a largely hated two term president, gets less positive media attention than an opposition candidate running on hope, change and honesty?

Just go back to Tuesday. All three candidates gave televised speeches. It's not the media's fault that McCain's blew chunks. Shit, he should be thankful the media had Obama and Hillary's speeches to focus on, otherwise they would have spent the night tearing his pathetic display a new one for more than the few minutes devoted to it as is.

 

[thekad]

Let's review:

Gaborn says: Obama has had overwhelmingly positive coverage compared to the other candidates

Facts say: Not really, though he has had more positive coverage than McCain.

Gaborn says: Obama got little flack from Pastorgate.

Facts say: Pastorgate was the biggest story, by a wide margin, in the entire campaign streching from Jan. to May. The story broke in March.

Gaborn says: Well he had a lot of positive coverage before Pastorgate.

Facts say: No shit. Pastorgate broke, along with the other -gates, when he became the clear front-runner.

Verdict: The media attacks the frontrunner, whoever it is. I posted this 5 pages ago.

 

[Gaborn]

Is it really the media's fault that McCain, running in the shadow of a largely hated two term president, gets less positive media attention than an opposition candidate running on hope, change and honesty?

Just go back to Tuesday. All three candidates gave televised speeches. It's not the media's fault that McCain's blew chunks. Shit, he should be thankful the media had Obama and Hillary's speeches to focus on, otherwise they would have spent the night tearing his pathetic display a new one for more than the few minutes devoted to it as is.

No, it's not the media's fault that McCain is running in the shadow of a largely hated president at all. As I said, despite attempts to paint me as such I'm NOT a McCain supporter, I do find large disparities in coverage interesting though.

Let's review:

Gaborn says: Obama has had overwhelmingly positive coverage compared to the other candidates

Facts say: Not really, though he has had more positive coverage than McCain.

I don't believe I said "compared to the other candidates" I said he had overwhelmingly positive coverage. Which is true. It's especially telling with the Wright scandal.

Gaborn says: Obama got little flack from Pastorgate.

Facts say: Pastorgate was the biggest story, by a wide margin, in the entire campaign streching from Jan. to May. The story broke in March.

That doesn't negate the point when the "biggest story" is 10% of his total coverage, and 69% of his coverage is positive.

Gaborn says: Well he had a lot of positive coverage before Pastorgate.

Facts say: No shit. Pastorgate broke, along with the other -gates, when he became the clear front-runner.

Actually, I think the facts suggest that without Wright Obama would be brushing 80% positive coverage.

Verdict: The media attacks the frontrunner, whoever it is. I posted this 5 pages ago.

and I hope no one agrees with that? certainly the degree of attack is different however.