It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by David9176
Yeah, gets negative coverage because of a negative campaign. That's complete BS. Obama doesn't really have to go negative...not with an army made of media on his side to do all the dirty work for him. There is supposed to be honest journalism...but i guess that doesn't exist anymore and everyone seems to be fine with it.
It shouldn't matter what the tone of the freakin campaigns are....the coverage is supposed to be even regardless.
You only see it this way because u are all Obama supporters. He can do NO WRONG in your minds.
In context, i would hope that Obama becomes President just for the fact that you would all be proven how terrible he is at it. We'll have a Democratic Bush. Yay! It's only fair right?
Not worried about the Fairness Doctrine or second amendment rights? We'll be fine!! i'm not worried! It may or may not happen but it's worth the risk right? After all....Democrats have earned the right to F UP THE GOVERNMENT JUST AS MUCH AS REPUBLICANS HAVE RIGHT?
[edit on 23-10-2008 by David9176]
Originally posted by mind is the universe
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread404299
He get's more negative coverage, because he projects more negativity than Obama. McCain is more on the attack, than Obama. Not to judge the two wrongly, but Obama is calmer and more in control than McCain has been. People are going to respond to that, respectively.
So it makes perfects sense people are going to respond to the way hes reaacting onto the world if you like, be it you, mass media, interviewer, country etc.
Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by mind is the universe
For your viewing pleasure.
The lady speaks at 1:20.
This takes a study? Well at least it is documented.
Originally posted by Marcus Calpurnius
This is not a surprise to some of us, who have watched as our media transformed in to the propaganda arm of the DNC and Obama. Not that I beleive this will convince any of the left wing folks on this forum. As long as the media is spinning things for the left wing of this country, they could care less. They are only interested in shutting down the lone voices of the right.
But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable -- and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three-to-one -- the most unfavorable of all four candidates -- according to the study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says.
Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois.
[edit on 23-10-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]
What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent). You call that balanced? OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico. And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues. So what?