The report admits that if the republicans didn't mention Hillary in every sentence the republicans would be getting more coverage. So who's fault is that?

Dear Harvard: The media says you suck. herm

I took a media class once,
teacher said as far as the free world goes, US media is unique in its ineptness and gave bunch of examples why.....
one of them being that the media is held under the same ratings criteria as an episode of everyone loves Raymond

heck we even use an innocuous color and picture word for our newz: "media"

I have known the press sucks for a long time. 60 minutes did a piece on $Rock Springs WY in the 70s and every thing in the report was bullshit. That's when they lost me.

One of the problems is they report without any context. When Cheney gives a speech where he claims tax cuts increase revenue, and no reporter points out Cheney isn't factoring in inflation, the American public loses. Is it too much to ask our reporters be able to pass an Econ 101 final, and hold our leaders to the same?

Is it too much to ask our reporters be able to pass an Econ 101 final, and hold our leaders to the same?

yes

Dear Media: Harvard Says You Suck

Now wipe that repube jizz off yer chin-it's unseemly....

Taking all the presidential hopefuls together, the press overall has been more positive about Democratic candidates and more negative about Republicans. In the stories mainly about one of the Democratic candidates, the largest percentage was neutral (39%), but more than a third of stories (35%) were positive, while slightly more than a quarter (26%) carried a clearly negative tone.

For Republicans, the numbers were basically reversed. Again the same number as for Democrats (39%) were neutral, but more than a third (35%) were negative vs. 26% positive.

In other words, not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall, the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats.

No surprise there.

"No surprise there."

Nor should there be, given the abysmal record of governance by this current crop of so-called Republicans, including some of the nominees.

Any prudent reasonable intelligent individual would agree with Harvard.

The media sucks so bad that they should have their first amendment rights revoked so they could be monitored for malice, fairness, and equality.

Media now is at a point they need to be left out of reporting so they don't control elections.

In fact, the media should now be forbidden to be owned by any U.S. company.

The media does indeed suck beyond all reason. It's our fault, though...we allow them to pander to our limited attention spans.

Money- it costs money to run the equipment for the news. How are they supposed to pay for it?

Should all stations be like PBS?

How is it Our faults that only a select few own the Majority of the Media Outlets??? We may very well have short attention spans that still does not negate that fact.

Larry Mohr

its our fault as a people because we believe their bs, and give money to their advertisers.

How sick is it that our MSM talks about Britney and kids nonstop when we're IN A WAR?

And yet, the MSM only does what it does to sell advertising time. And they only show us what we want to see as a people.

It's our societies fault. And even if it wasn't, we could rise up against the media, but that won't happen either. I don't know if it's human nature, or an american thing, but we love to rubberneck on a car crash...and that's what our media has become.

We can't look away and it's slowing down progress.

but read on dear BOWA, you might be suprised

"Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.

Now look at Hillary and Guilliani, their respective party's frontrunners

www.journalism.org

equal with regards to positive and negative coverage..

I think Doem is missing the point.

Look at it this way... the media coverage is like an arrow gauge. Obama, out of the 4 cadidates mentioned, is the farthest to the left. McCain by contrast is the farthest to the Right. Hillary and Giulliani are more Centrist.

If you consider that the fulcrum that the arrow turns on should be in the center, and the arrow should point straight up. This would mean that the candidates got equal treatment from the press.

Instead what this shows is the press heavily for the more Leftist candidate. They have already picked their "darling" candidate. It is a clear indication of bias.

Moo- Except the media ravaged Gore a lot more than they did Bush in 2000.

And kerry more than Bush in 2004 even though bush had the worse record.

The MSM went after Clinton more than Dole in 1996.

We can spend all night findind examples in both directions, but one thing remains unchanged:

THe MSM focuses on a brain dead and short attention spanned narrative and then punches that button 1000 times until it becomes a "fact". Why? Because they have determined that this strategy gets them more ad money from the american people.

Alex,

It is all about standards, and the definitions of content. The situation of the same company running prime time TV soaps with our news is stupid and not holding the media up to a certain level of standards of non-partisanship is idiotic.

They want 1st amendment rights, but could careless about their role in democracy and the corporate profit dollar. Those owners run the elections, pick their candidate and so it goes.

The fines are small, why, because they will kill(as in bad press) the political individual who is in power for any heavy fines.

Integrity of the reader or integrety of the media.

Its value is predicated upon the span of influence across society.

moomanfl

whaaaaaaa?
your premise is incorrect
edwards has gotten trashed in the media and he is to the left of clinton

McCain probably gets the most negative coverage because his campaign is both very public and in complete dissaray. Even the far right, who based on your assumption should love the guy, cant stop haranging against him

i have no doubt that the media has picked their darlings, but i think it comes down to electability rather than politics

your premise is incorrect
edwards has gotten trashed in the media and he is to the left of clinton

As I said, the media picked their darling. It might not have been Edwards... but the arrow is still pointing well to left.

moomanfl

so now your backtracking, hemming and hawing
cool.

so now your backtracking, hemming and hawing
cool.

Not at all. The supposedly unbiased media has CHOSEN (taking sides being the anti-thesis of "unbiased") their darling candidate... from the Left. Not even a just-left-of-center candidate, but rather one FIRMLY on the left.

How is that backtracking?

The corporate media has been telling you what to think your whole lives!
Wake up! Don't be a brainwashed tv zombie.
Question everything!

i have no doubt that the media has picked their darlings, but i think it comes down to electability rather than politics

And who decides electability? I think you might have the tail waging the dog here Doem.

I think the media may favor Barrack Obama but I think it is because he has millions to spend and they don't think he has any chance of winning.
The media is owned by major corporations who have an agenda which they always subtly consider when they hire and fire reporters, anchors, etc. Their employees know what the unspoken agenda is and they know what to talk about and what not to talk about. If they forget then they find themselves looking for employment.

The corporate media has been telling you what to think your whole lives!
Wake up! Don't be a brainwashed tv zombie.
Question everything!

THE END IS NIGH!!! REPENT!!!!

Seriously though, Jeff.... forgot to take your meds today? I think the nurse is looking for you. Time for your thorazine.

AWE!

The "media" offer up the empty short sighted manufactured reality that so many of you live by and all of a sudden the apathetic, commercial buying boob tubers are all in a tizzy!

See, you get "entertainment tonight" dribble 24/7 because you WANT "entertainment tonight" dribble 24/7!

Remember, dad being away from home all the time is all made good because junior and Mom have flip phones, an obnoxious house and an SUV that's better than the Jones (in my opinion the only thing most Americans can manage to get passionate about).

You people are nothing but plastic buying, corporate owned, consumer obsessed Zombies!

Buy, buy, buy! Waste, waste, waste! Praise the lord and pass the Prozac (because drugs made by a corporation are Holy and Good for you)!



YEAH!

Wikipedia on Marshal McLuhan:

Marshall McLuhan, well-known to be a technological determinist, argues in The Medium is the Massage that the dominant communication media of our time will shape the way humans think, act, and ultimately perceive the world around them. Technologies--from clothing to the wheel to the book, and beyond--are the messages themselves, not the content of the medium. In essence, The Medium is the Massage is a graphical and creative representation of his 'medium is the message' thesis seen in Understanding Media.

By playing on words and utilizing the term 'massage,' McLuhan is suggesting that modern audiences have found current media to be soothing, enjoyable, and relaxing; however, the pleasure we find in new media is deceiving, as the changes between society and technology are incongruent and are perpetuating an Age of Anxiety.

All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered.

The Medium is the Massage demonstrates how modern media are extensions of human senses; they ground us in physicality, but expand our ability to perceive our world to an extent that would be impossible without the media. These extensions of perception contribute to McLuhan's theory of the Global Village, which would bring humanity full circle to an industrial analogue of tribal mentality.

The "media" offer up the empty short sighted manufactured reality that so many of you live by and all of a sudden the apathetic, commercial buying boob tubers are all in a tizzy!

See, you get "entertainment tonight" dribble 24/7 because you WANT "entertainment tonight" dribble 24/7!

Remember, dad being away from home all the time is all made good because junior and Mom have flip phones, an obnoxious house and an SUV that's better than the Jones (in my opinion the only thing most Americans can manage to get passionate about).

You people are nothing but plastic buying, corporate owned, consumer obsessed Zombies!

Buy, buy, buy! Waste, waste, waste! Praise the lord and pass the Prozac (because drugs made by a corporation are Holy and Good for you)!



YEAH!

Posted by Redneckville at 2007-11-02 09:49 AM



Good Rant RED...I 'll go along with quite a bit of that.

"Nor should there be, given the abysmal record of governance by this current crop of so-called Republicans, including some of the nominees." - DAN

Right on.... but don't you mean Democrats... I mean, Sen. Clinton and Sen Obama??? are they not the party in power and in "governance"? I guess you may be speaking of McCain, but he doesn't have the votes (republicans are in the minority) so they can't get much done without the votes... so whats the Dems reason for not getting anything done while in "governance"?

I know you and most libs get confused easily because the minority is always right and should get everything they want as it is only fair and owed to them, so is that why you want to blame the Republicans for failed "governance" while dealing with a democratic house and senate???? So does that mean we vote to have our party in the minority status so we have power to get things done?.... the Lib mind is very interesting to say the least...

Oh never mind... I just got a IM from a friend that explained to me you are a reporter... Now I get it...

" so whats the Dems reason for not getting anything done while in "governance"?"

Robert's Rules of Order.

Familiar with it?

Isn't FUX Noise part of the Media?

Ya know, the ones that the repubs love to point out have the highest ratings.

They always seem to forget FAUX News when yelling 'liberal MSM'.

Right on.... but don't you mean Democrats... I mean, Sen. Clinton and Sen Obama??? are they not the party in power and in "governance"? I guess you may be speaking of McCain, but he doesn't have the votes (republicans are in the minority) so they can't get much done without the votes... so whats the Dems reason for not getting anything done while in "governance"?



Posted by triggerman6 at 2007-11-02 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

George 'Veto' Bush.....and the rest of the bitter repubs that won't work with the dems.