Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
There's an election coming up; Not that you'd know it from watching the networks
Topic Started: Oct 22 2014, 04:32 PM (677 Views)
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Link

Quote:
 
Our analysts found that, when Democrats were feeling good about their election prospects eight years ago, the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and ABC’s World News aired a combined 159 campaign stories (91 full reports and another 68 stories that mentioned the campaign). But during the same time period this year, those same newscasts have offered a paltry 25 stories (16 full reports and 9 mentions), a six-to-one
disparity.

Amazingly, since September 1 ABC’s newly-renamed World News Tonight has yet to feature a single mention of this year’s campaign, let alone a full story. In contrast, eight years ago ABC’s World News aired 36 stories that discussed that year’s midterm campaign, including a weekly Thursday night feature that then-anchor Charlie Gibson promised would look at the “critical races.”

Back then, the elections were a major news topic; this year, a regular viewer of ABC’s evening newscast would have no indication that any were even taking place.

CBS and NBC have scarcely been more comprehensive. In 2006, CBS aired a total of 58 evening news stories that discussed the campaign, while NBC Nightly News aired 65 stories. This year, those numbers have fallen to just 14 and 11 as of October 20, declines of 76% and 83%, respectively.

Posted Image

...

Eight years ago, there was no escaping the negative news for Republicans. Not only were polls projecting a major swing to the Democrats, but a scandal involving Florida Representative Mark Foley received major attention from all three network evening newscasts. Of the 159 network evening news stories that fall, nearly two-thirds (103, or 65%) conveyed either mainly bad news about Republican candidates, or mainly good news about the Democrats, vs. just seven (4%) conveying the opposite message. (The remainder were either neutral or mixed.)

“With scandals, the war, and the President with low approval ratings, this is a very difficult environment for Republicans to run,” CBS’s Gloria Borger opined on the October 17 Evening News. The next night, October 18, NBC Nightly News led their broadcast with poll results that Tim Russert said were making Republicans “very, very nervous,” including a big lead for Democrats in the generic congressional ballot (52% vs. 37% for the GOP).

This week, NBC conducted a similar pre-election poll that found a five-point edge (49% to 44%) for Republicans in the generic ballot, comparable to the six-point edge they had going into the 1994 elections in which they seized control of both the House and Senate. But so far, the NBC Nightly News said nothing about this poll or the bad news it contained for Democrats.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop

Shocking.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Why did they exclude fox and cnn? Data mining? Nostalgia for the 70s?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
jon-nyc
Oct 22 2014, 05:00 PM
Why did they exclude fox and cnn? Data mining? Nostalgia for the 70s?
You can't combat liberal media bias if you start criticizing Fox.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
jon-nyc
Oct 22 2014, 05:00 PM
Why did they exclude fox and cnn? Data mining? Nostalgia for the 70s?
Because they chose not to?
Quote:
 
MRC analysts studied every election story on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from September 1 through October 20 in both 2006.

Why do you think that ABC is ignoring the election? Zero stories? None?

It was newsworthy 8 years ago, wasn't it? Why, I remember people who used to be here practically soiling themselves at that time.

But your question is good. I wonder what the data for MSNBC and the others would show.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
George K
Oct 22 2014, 05:10 PM
jon-nyc
Oct 22 2014, 05:00 PM
Why did they exclude fox and cnn? Data mining? Nostalgia for the 70s?
Because they chose not to?
MRC combats media bias in much the same way that Joseph Stalin combatted fascism.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
John D'Oh
Oct 22 2014, 05:11 PM
MRC combats media bias in much the same way that Joseph Stalin combatted fascism.
Do you dispute their findings? If so, how? What do you have to show otherwise?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
There's no real need to talk about it prior to November 2.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/10/abc-news-announces-coverage-of-the-2014-midterm-election-across-all-programs-and-platforms/

Quote:
 

ABC News Announces Coverage of the 2014 Midterm Election Across All Programs and Platforms

On Tuesday, November 4 Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos Leads Live Coverage on the ABC Network and Digital Platforms

Two Live One-Hour “Your Voice, Your Vote” Programs Air on ABC at 10:00 PM ET and 10 PM PT

Uninterrupted Coverage Online from 7:00 PM – 2:00 AM ET

Coverage Kicks Off with a Special Edition of “World News Tonight with David Muir” at 6:30 PM ET

ABC News’ Powerhouse Political Team Will Provide Comprehensive Coverage and In-Depth Analysis from New York, Washington and Key Battleground States Across the Country

“This Week with George Stephanopoulos” Will Preview Election Day Races on Sunday, November 2

On Tuesday, November 4 ABC News‘ Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos will lead live, uninterrupted coverage online from 7:00 PM – 2:00 AM ET. At 10:00 PM ET and 10:00 PM PT it will be simulcast live for one-hour special reports on the ABC broadcast network with additional live updates at 7:00, 8:00, 9:00, 11:00 PM and 12:00 AM ET as polls close in various states.

The network’s Election Night coverage kicks off with a special edition of “World News Tonight with David Muir” at 6:30 PM ET, with live updates throughout the night.


The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
George K
Oct 22 2014, 05:13 PM
John D'Oh
Oct 22 2014, 05:11 PM
MRC combats media bias in much the same way that Joseph Stalin combatted fascism.
Do you dispute their findings? If so, how? What do you have to show otherwise?
My point is that they're as biased as the people they're accusing of being biased. They're also cherrypicking since they didn't appear to look at what Fox was doing, which would have made a good control. If Fox is being as lacklustre in it's reporting of the election as the liberal networks, then that would kind of spoil their bias accusations - they can say the media is crap, and let's face it, we all know that's true, but not necessarily biased. Unless of course you buy into the idea that Fox News is unbiased, as some have claimed.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
They're cherrypicking only to the extent that they didn't, as Jon points out, include MSNBC, and CNN.

What is your basis for saying they're biased? The fact that they "cherrypicked", or that you don't like what they found?

The networks that you say are crappy covered the 2006 elections in a much more intense fashion than they are covering this one. Why do you think that is? The control is the 2006 election, not news sources they didn't look at.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
George K
Oct 22 2014, 06:40 PM
What is your basis for saying they're biased?
Seriously? Have you looked at the rest of the website?

Incidentally, I'm not defending the American media, it's dreadful. But only complaining about how biased the liberal media is, and leaving Fox alone misses the real point - it's not the liberal bias that's the problem, it's the bias that's the problem.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
John D'Oh
Oct 22 2014, 06:48 PM
George K
Oct 22 2014, 06:40 PM
What is your basis for saying they're biased?
Seriously? Have you looked at the rest of the website?
Yep, and there's no question that they have a ... bias. However, much of it is backed up by numbers.

But rather than saying "But FOX NEWWWWEEEEEESSS!", perhaps looking at what they say, (dare I say) objectively, and telling me what you find in error would be helpful.

Put simply, have the three networks ignored that there's a mid term election coming up, particularly in view of their coverage eight years ago? By a factor of 16 to 1. 23 million people get their news from those three sources - far, far more than MSNBC, CNN or FOX.

If no, then, we're done, because the MRC is lying.

If so, then why do you think that's the case?

Let me suggest this:

Posted Image
Edited by George K, Oct 22 2014, 06:56 PM.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I'm not denying there's bias, and I'm sure as hell not carrying water for crappy American news networks. I get my news elsewhere as you know :lol:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Incidentally, our local public radio station has been running an absolute ton of stuff on MA elections over the last few weeks - I've ended up putting on music instead due to the lengths of the reports.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Riley
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Why can't a media outlet be biased one way or the other? They aren't government owned or operated. Yet conservatives go on about this non issue more than abortion. :confused:
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Riley
Oct 23 2014, 04:09 AM
Why can't a media outlet be biased one way or the other? They aren't government owned or operated. Yet conservatives go on about this non issue more than abortion. :confused:
You'd think they'd appreciate this aspect of the free market, wouldn't you?

If you don't like the channel, change over to a better one.

Or maybe they'd prefer the British system where you need a special license to watch TV. I can imagine that going down real well in Libertyville :lol2:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Improviso
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Oct 23 2014, 04:19 AM
You'd think they'd appreciate this aspect of the free market, wouldn't you?

If you don't like the channel, change over to a better one.
I was channeling surfing yesterday and noticed that I didn't see CNN or HLN in the channel listings anymore. I have DishTV.

A little research shows that Turner broadcasting and DishTV are in a contract dispute and Dish dropped the channels from their lineup.

I see this as a good thing. Hang tough Dish. :thumb:
Identifying narcissists isn't difficult. Just look for the person who is constantly fishing for compliments
and admiration while breaking down over even the slightest bit of criticism.

We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
200 channels, all crap.

So much for free-market economics.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Riley
Oct 23 2014, 04:09 AM
Why can't a media outlet be biased one way or the other? They aren't government owned or operated. Yet conservatives go on about this non issue more than abortion. :confused:
The media has always been biased. Back in the nineteenth century newspapers would often run their political affiliation on top with their masthead like The Quincy Whig or the Arkansas Democrat. Readers knew what they could expect up front. The really insidious thing about today's media is their pretense to being unbiased. It is a con job in effect telling people, "Here is the unbiased truth because we are unbiased" when they are anything but. It is dishonest even though they have become so transparently biased that they might as well call themselves the Democrat or the Republican as the case may be.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
John D'Oh
Oct 22 2014, 05:09 PM
jon-nyc
Oct 22 2014, 05:00 PM
Why did they exclude fox and cnn? Data mining? Nostalgia for the 70s?
You can't combat liberal media bias if you start criticizing Fox.
Sometimes, y'all's inherit anti-Fox bias makes y'all dumber than a bag of hammers.

George's graphic is illustrating the number of stories on BROADCAST NEWS. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc., are not broadcast news.

They looked at the 3 majors. The only one left out (here's where you might have half a leg to stand on) is PBS.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Yeah, its still data mining. I mean, unless their real concern is what content is available to the small minority of TV watchers who only have an antenna.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
JBryan
Oct 23 2014, 04:47 AM
Riley
Oct 23 2014, 04:09 AM
Why can't a media outlet be biased one way or the other? They aren't government owned or operated. Yet conservatives go on about this non issue more than abortion. :confused:
The media has always been biased. Back in the nineteenth century newspapers would often run their political affiliation on top with their masthead like The Quincy Whig or the Arkansas Democrat. Readers knew what they could expect up front. The really insidious thing about today's media is their pretense to being unbiased. It is a con job in effect telling people, "Here is the unbiased truth because we are unbiased" when they are anything but. It is dishonest even though they have become so transparently biased that they might as well call themselves the Democrat or the Republican as the case may be.

Yes, in the old days the 3 major networks made some effort to limit bias one way or the other and just report the news.

Some viewers remember this and maybe still expect it. The remnants of these networks try to wrap themselves in this cloak of public service. This is of course, obviously no longer the case.

It's probably better this way. But there is still a need for a reliable source of news.

Somebody could make a lot of money by simply collecting and distributing unvarnished facts.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
George K
Oct 22 2014, 06:55 PM
John D'Oh
Oct 22 2014, 06:48 PM
George K
Oct 22 2014, 06:40 PM
What is your basis for saying they're biased?
Seriously? Have you looked at the rest of the website?
Yep, and there's no question that they have a ... bias. However, much of it is backed up by numbers.

But rather than saying "But FOX NEWWWWEEEEEESSS!", perhaps looking at what they say, (dare I say) objectively, and telling me what you find in error would be helpful.

Put simply, have the three networks ignored that there's a mid term election coming up, particularly in view of their coverage eight years ago? By a factor of 16 to 1. 23 million people get their news from those three sources - far, far more than MSNBC, CNN or FOX.

If no, then, we're done, because the MRC is lying.

If so, then why do you think that's the case?

Let me suggest this:

Posted Image
George, you can't. You just can't cherry-pick and be objective. The two are mutually exclusive.

1. Because statistics.

2. A parable: say you were conducting a study of the fall of the Nazi Regime, specifically what happened in June 1944. But instead of looking at the whole of Europe you focused only on the Eastern Front. You'd see that in that month, the Red Army tore Hitler's army a new one in Operation Bagration as they plowed 450 miles through Russia, Belarus, and then right up through Warsaw. In five weeks, Stalin advanced 450 miles west. It was a complete and total disaster for Hitler.

You could draw all sorts of conclusions about how that made Hitler's downfall, none of them factually erroneous, but without context—that is, omitting the largest sea invasion in human history from your study—you cannot make sound conclusions.

You can't understand what happened to Hitler's army in June 1944 without talking about both D-Day and the Eastern Front collapse. You can't talk about some media blackout of the upcoming elections without knowing what every major media outlet is doing.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
jon-nyc
Oct 23 2014, 06:01 AM
Yeah, its still data mining. I mean, unless their real concern is what content is available to the small minority of TV watchers who only have an antenna.
Less than half of all Americans have cable nowadays, although several million others have satellite. But many Americans depend solely on broadcast tv or broadcast tv + web tv such as HULU.

At the end of the day, viewership numbers for the network newscasts dwarf that of CNN or FOX News.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I prefer the network evening news myself, although I have cable.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3