Calendar
Retailers
Stack & Reach
Custom Geometry Calculator (beta)
More To Come...
MAIN
INDEX
RULES &
LEGEND
LOG
IN
Search
this forum
this category
all forums
for
All words
Any words
Whole Phrase
(
options
)
Newsletter Signup
Slowtwitch Forums
:
Lavender Room
:
Disparate Candidate Coverage
Tri Forum
Classifieds
Lavender Room
Jobs
The Womens
Print Thread
dave_w
Aug 18, 08 16:03
Post #1 of 14 (211 views)
Disparate Candidate Coverage
Can't Post
The ombudsman at Wapo is (rightfully IMO) bothered by it. Does it matter?
Obama's Edge in the Coverage Race
By
Deborah Howell
Sunday, August 17, 2008; Page B06
Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good.
full article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...81503100.html?sub=AR
"It's all about self-esteem"
parkito
Aug 18, 08 16:37
Post #2 of 14 (200 views)
Re: Disparate Candidate Coverage [dave_w]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Thanks Dave. If I spin this correctly, I think I can justify why I start so many Obama threads legitimately.
;-)
Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (
James Bryant Conant
)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (
Doug Stern
)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (
William Shakespeare
)
vitus979
Aug 18, 08 16:41
Post #3 of 14 (195 views)
Re: Disparate Candidate Coverage [dave_w]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Like it or not, this election is all about Obama. McCain and his supporters might have a leg to stand on complaining about it if their own efforts weren't all about Obama.
In that context, I think the more meaningful measure of disparate coverage would be what kind of coverage each candidate gets, rather than how much. But that's much more subjective, of course.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Mike Lamb
Aug 18, 08 17:41
Post #4 of 14 (182 views)
Re: Disparate Candidate Coverage [dave_w]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Of course, there is also this:
http://www.cmpa.com/...20news%207_29_08.htm
f/k/a mclamb6
majorminor
Aug 18, 08 17:42
Post #5 of 14 (180 views)
Post deleted by majorminor
[
In reply to
]
parkito
Aug 18, 08 18:17
Post #6 of 14 (165 views)
Re: Disparate Candidate Coverage [majorminor]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
"
Bill Hamilton
, assistant managing editor for politics, thinks that I'm wrong to put weight on numbers. We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that's what our readers look for us to do
I could almost buy that, IF they had an objective way to monitor their objectivity. Scientists have developed the double blind system for conducting experiments for a very good reason, because all scientists are human, and humans have innate biases. It comes with the pink slips and is unavoidable.
The business about people wanting the editors to decide what is important is total BS. I think it reveals a flaw in their self perception.
Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (
James Bryant Conant
)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (
Doug Stern
)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (
William Shakespeare
)
dave_w
Aug 18, 08 18:42
Post #7 of 14 (158 views)
Re: Disparate Candidate Coverage [majorminor]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Project for Excellence in Journalism
From the article, she references these guys as finding the same over a larger cross section of media. Haven't checked them out on this issue. I agree completely with you about the transparency point. Really like the way everyone knows the slant they are getting in the various Brit press. I read and crosscheck various sources and find they lean one way or the other, it's just a matter of to what extent. That's why I snicker at the folks that say they'd never watch Fox, or read WSJ, but think they are getting the whole story with the sister publications of NYT and WAPO, with maybe some NPR just to be sure. It really limits their inputs.
As to the Obama coverage, I agree that we needed more coverage of him because he is really new to us. In a way it may be working against him, as people are now ready to know specifics on his thoughts and plans. We've moved beyond limerence.
A recent Investor's Business Daily tracked campaign donations from press folks, and found the fairly consistent 90% of donations to dems. I like this LA Times response that says the numbers are so because pubs are more stingy. lol
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.../media-politics.html
"It's all about self-esteem"
CaptainCanada
Aug 18, 08 23:05
Post #8 of 14 (133 views)
Re: Disparate Candidate Coverage [dave_w]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
It's not about fairness, it's about what sells newspapers.
Put Obama on the cover, sales go up because democrats read.
Republicans just regurgitate Rush Limpaugh's daily talking points, and very few of them read.
;)
===============
2009 Race Schedule:
Wine Country Oly, IM Lanzarote, Wasa Lake Oly, Rhode Island 70.3, Ultraman Canada Relay, Apple Oly, IMC, Grand Columbian Half
dave_w
Aug 19, 08 5:49
Post #9 of 14 (113 views)
Re: Disparate Candidate Coverage [Mike Lamb]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To
Of course, there is also this:
http://www.cmpa.com/...20news%207_29_08.htm
Dubious, first because , is any press bad press (unless you're larry craig) :) ? Also the types of things that are considered "negative" are dubious in themselves. Like "Obama is still trailing in the over 45 female category..." is considered negative. Even Couric's question, in the article you listed, is a stretch.
"It's all about self-esteem"
David in FL
Aug 19, 08 6:26
Post #10 of 14 (104 views)
Re: Disparate Candidate Coverage [CaptainCanada]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To
It's not about fairness, it's about what sells newspapers.
Actually, I'll agree with you here.
After taking the local paper for the last 35 years, I just recently canceled my subscription. Newspapers are dying.....if not already dead....as a viable, timely source of information. As a result, newspapers that want to continue to survive have to pander to the somewhat limited readership that remains, and yes, for the most part that is the less educated that make up such a large part of the democrat base. Those that are unwilling or unable to think for themselves and would never think to research anything for themselves via alternative sources of information. Hence the popularity of USA Today and the fluff that passes for modern print jounalism these days. Put Obama on the front page with a carefully chosen, albeit misleading headline and the average reader will glance at it on the way to the sports page, the entertainment section and the comics. Mission accomplished.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt
(This post was
edited
by David in FL on Aug 19, 08 7:18)
fitzie
Aug 19, 08 7:21
Post #11 of 14 (90 views)
Re: Disparate Candidate Coverage [dave_w]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Maybe people are more interested in someone else besides the standard white male candidate. Just a thought.
"We thought that we had the answers, it was the questions we had wrong."
Bono
David in FL
Aug 19, 08 7:51
Post #12 of 14 (82 views)
Re: Disparate Candidate Coverage [fitzie]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To
Maybe people are more interested in someone else besides the standard white male candidate.
Wow.....I'm 2 for 2 agreeing with libs today!
Well said, and of course you're right. A large percentage of the democrat base is so shallow and uninformed about the actual issues that they simply vote
against
the race and/or gender of one candidate without any real understanding of the differences between the candidates with respect to those issues.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt
parkito
Aug 19, 08 8:13
Post #13 of 14 (74 views)
Re: Disparate Candidate Coverage [David in FL]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
It's not about fairness, it's about what sells newspapers.
Actually, I'll agree with you here.
Ditto.
Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (
James Bryant Conant
)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (
Doug Stern
)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (
William Shakespeare
)
dave_w
Aug 19, 08 11:47
Post #14 of 14 (53 views)
Re: Disparate Candidate Coverage [fitzie]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To
Maybe people are more interested in someone else besides the standard white male candidate. Just a thought.
Well, yeah, that's part of his appeal...perhaps a large part. So, I'll put you in the "Obama is more interesting/new/unknown and greater coverage is bound to happen, so I'm okay with a disparity" group.
"It's all about self-esteem"
Print Thread
MAIN
RULES &
LOG
