• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

DNC 2016 thread

If the media brought up each time Donald Trump stole goods or services from a person or company, there would be no other news from now until the election. Hell, the number of times he has stiffed people might warrant a RICO investigation of his ongoing criminal enterprise,
 
Deacs89 said:
I didnt read that but I bet if you took fox news out of the equation that chart would be substantially different.
Click to expand...

Fair enough point. Here's an entirely different study conducted with a similar objective:

http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

The conclusion is the same - media coverage of Clinton is overwhelmingly negative. Even taking into account the FOX News effect, the conclusion is still valid:

Of the eight news outlets in our study, Fox News easily led the way. Clinton received 291 negative reports on Fox, compared with only 39 positive ones, most of which were in the context of poll results that showed her with a wide lead... In terms of tone and volume combined, Clinton’s most favorable coverage was provided by The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, largely in the context of her poll position as the presumptive nominee. In other contexts, their coverage of Clinton, like that of the other six outlets, was more negative than positive in tone.

The narrative that the "liberal" media is in the tank for Clinton is just not supported by the facts.
 
Deacs89 said:
also forgive me when the "chart" is followed up with this commentary As Media Matters has noted throughout the primary campaign, the coverage of Hillary Clinton has tended to focus on fake scandals such as her use of a private email server

Also later to be quoted by VOX which is as far left and in the tank operation as you can find.

Its cute though
Click to expand...

The post is biased, sure, but the source material and data are not.
 
CantStandYa said:
Fair enough point. Here's an entirely different study conducted with a similar objective:

http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

The conclusion is the same - media coverage of Clinton is overwhelmingly negative. Even taking into account the FOX News effect, the conclusion is still valid:

Of the eight news outlets in our study, Fox News easily led the way. Clinton received 291 negative reports on Fox, compared with only 39 positive ones, most of which were in the context of poll results that showed her with a wide lead... In terms of tone and volume combined, Clinton’s most favorable coverage was provided by The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, largely in the context of her poll position as the presumptive nominee. In other contexts, their coverage of Clinton, like that of the other six outlets, was more negative than positive in tone.

The narrative that the "liberal" media is in the tank for Clinton is just not supported by the facts.
Click to expand...

I think there are some variables here that are not measured. The benghazi hearings email hearing etc had to happen. they by their very nature had to be covered and woudl be looked at as negative just on face value. But the media at every turn where there can be given a softer landing would give it to her. She was never chased down with the veracity they do with Trump or challenged in interviews by pundits. I mean maybe I am wrong but the simple fact that Hillary has not done a press interview in over 200 plus days and we only really hear about it from Trump is pretty telling.
 
CantStandYa said:
Fair enough point. Here's an entirely different study conducted with a similar objective:

http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

The conclusion is the same - media coverage of Clinton is overwhelmingly negative. Even taking into account the FOX News effect, the conclusion is still valid:

Of the eight news outlets in our study, Fox News easily led the way. Clinton received 291 negative reports on Fox, compared with only 39 positive ones, most of which were in the context of poll results that showed her with a wide lead... In terms of tone and volume combined, Clinton’s most favorable coverage was provided by The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, largely in the context of her poll position as the presumptive nominee. In other contexts, their coverage of Clinton, like that of the other six outlets, was more negative than positive in tone.

The narrative that the "liberal" media is in the tank for Clinton is just not supported by the facts.
Click to expand...


They really should take poll results out of the mix or report them separately.
 
If there's really data out there to counter the points put out by politifact, snopes, media matters, shorensteincenter (whatever this is) wouldn't these be all over the place? The internet is a vast (connection of tubes) entity where anyone can get a website to say anything. Surely there are reputable conservative sites out there that use data to make their points and have addressed these criticisms substantively of a biased mainstream media right?
 
Deacs89 said:
I think there are some variables here that are not measured. The benghazi hearings email hearing etc had to happen. they by their very nature had to be covered and woudl be looked at as negative just on face value. But the media at every turn where there can be given a softer landing would give it to her. She was never chased down with the veracity they do with Trump or challenged in interviews by pundits. I mean maybe I am wrong but the simple fact that Hillary has not done a press interview in over 200 plus days and we only really hear about it from Trump is pretty telling.
Click to expand...

you suck at debates. you really do.
 
"If you pick the news events that I think should be evaluated and remove the ones that I don't think, then my point about Hillary getting lots of positive press and the media in her pocket is valid."

"If you just take out that 43-5 run against Iona, we were right there"
 
Deacs89 said:
I think there are some variables here that are not measured. The benghazi hearings email hearing etc had to happen. they by their very nature had to be covered and woudl be looked at as negative just on face value. But the media at every turn where there can be given a softer landing would give it to her. She was never chased down with the veracity they do with Trump or challenged in interviews by pundits. I mean maybe I am wrong but the simple fact that Hillary has not done a press interview in over 200 plus days and we only really hear about it from Trump is pretty telling.
Click to expand...

I believe that the last sentence is good campaign strategy rather than evidence of a conspiracy.
 
Deacs89 said:
I think there are some variables here that are not measured. The benghazi hearings email hearing etc had to happen. they by their very nature had to be covered and woudl be looked at as negative just on face value. But the media at every turn where there can be given a softer landing would give it to her. She was never chased down with the veracity they do with Trump or challenged in interviews by pundits. I mean maybe I am wrong but the simple fact that Hillary has not done a press interview in over 200 plus days and we only really hear about it from Trump is pretty telling.
Click to expand...

Could you not then say the exact same when it comes to Trump and the Muslim ban, the dispute with the U.S. Judge, and the countless other gaffes he's made that result in inherently negative coverage? How does that explain this?

figure-2.gif
 
Deacs89 said:
why are you such a dick ?
Click to expand...

but really, it has a lot to do with this

Wakeforest22890 said:
"If you pick the news events that I think should be evaluated and remove the ones that I don't think, then my point about Hillary getting lots of positive press and the media in her pocket is valid."

"If you just take out that 43-5 run against Iona, we were right there"
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top