PDA

View Full Version : MSNBC poll re: media bias



sack316
07-21-2008, 10:20 PM
to the question: "Is Democrat Barack Obama unfairly receiving more coverage than Republican John McCain?"

out of 118983 responses thus far:

A) (80%)Yes, the media has a liberal bias. No one should be surprised by this.


B) (14%) No, media coverage is based on newsworthiness. McCain is just not as newsy as Obama.


C) (6.2%) Sometimes, but it's a long campaign. There weren't a lot of McCain complaints during Obama's problems with Rev. Wright.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25785762?GT1=43001

Surely they must be using a Floridian voting system. This simply cannot be /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

And what I found to be most interesting is the wording of the poll. It obviously gives 2 out of 3 choices pointing a voter towards a "no response" and only 1 to "yes". The only "yes" option is a hard stance or "definite" answer with no wiggle room, i.e. not an option that would typically be chosen by someone on the fence, or not sure regarding the issue. Both "no" responses are phrased much softer and thus would be "easier" to choose by someone who hasn't already made up their mind on the matter. Classic example of a poll designed to create a stat, in this case, where two answers being selected would create a number that could say "no, the media isn't unfair or biased". This time, it seems to have backfired. Even the article that goes along with the poll is relatively soft and gives off the viewpoint that all the coverage for Obama is just sort of a thing that happens, and not bias.

And with all of this, still 4 out of every 5 responses think the media is biased towards Obama. And it's not a Fox News Poll, it's not based on a hundred people survey in McCain country... it's over a million readers. I'd love to break the poll down more, but fear it may reveal my statistical nerdiness. Besides, I think you get the idea.

Sack (chose A)

wolfdancer
07-21-2008, 11:53 PM
"Is Democrat Barack Obama unfairly receiving more coverage than Republican John McCain?"
You have problems with the choice of answers....but if 80% agreed with your selection, it couldn't have been that tricky. Maybe you read more into the question then was intended???
I think Obama is getting much more coverage, fairly.
We've never had an electable Black candidate before; that's newsworthy in itself. AND there's a thousand "McCain's" a year running for office, from small town assemblyman, on up.

LWW
07-22-2008, 06:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Is Democrat Barack Obama unfairly receiving more coverage than Republican John McCain?"
You have problems with the choice of answers....but if 80% agreed with your selection, it couldn't have been that tricky. Maybe you read more into the question then was intended???
I think Obama is getting much more coverage, fairly.
We've never had an electable Black candidate before; that's newsworthy in itself. AND there's a thousand "McCain's" a year running for office, from small town assemblyman, on up.
</div></div>
Maybe you wish it wasn't out in the open so bad that you will do anything to discredit the obvious.

LWW

Jeff
07-22-2008, 07:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Maybe you wish it wasn't out in the open so bad that you will do anything to discredit the obvious.

LWW </div></div>

The only discredit here is the discredit you bring to the Republican party.

How does it feel to know that people will voting for Obama because of you. I personally find it "divine justice" and just loving every minute of it.

An example from another forum directed at the famous (in his own mind) LWW (AKA Ducky)

"I have persuaded my wife, her family, my family and many of our friends and myself to vote for Obama, soley because of the 1,000s of posts bashing Obama daily here. Not to mention that all these posts each and EVERY day, ad nauseum, have ruined the NPR forum and this is my way at striking back at the lot of you. I intend to donate my time and money in campaigning for Mr. Obama until he is elected PRESIDENT."


.

Deeman3
07-22-2008, 07:21 AM
We all know that McCain asked for Obama to go to Iraq. Now I don't find it unusual that the focus is on him, maybe a little over the top but let's see how he plays on the world stage.

He has come so far right in the past month, I don't think, aside from the increased tax burden, that he will be that much different from McCain. I really don't. He has backed up on the war and I think we all know that he will do what is politicaly expedient regarding the war and no one will dare critique him.

Listen, if he is to be our president, I think we will need to support him as we would wish Democrats would do if McCain were elected. We may have never had anyone so far left as out president but we will survive it and, as all of us now know, he has pretty much abandoned his principals for votes. That's pretty traditional if you ask me.

Besides, it's fun to see the network anchors being campaign managers for a week. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
07-22-2008, 07:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeff</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Maybe you wish it wasn't out in the open so bad that you will do anything to discredit the obvious.

LWW </div></div>

The only discredit here is the discredit you bring to the Republican party.

How does it feel to know that people will voting for Obama because of you. I personally find it "divine justice" and just loving every minute of it.

An example from another forum directed at the famous (in his own mind) LWW (AKA Ducky)

"I have persuaded my wife, her family, my family and many of our friends and myself to vote for Obama, soley because of the 1,000s of posts bashing Obama daily here. Not to mention that all these posts each and EVERY day, ad nauseum, have ruined the NPR forum and this is my way at striking back at the lot of you. I intend to donate my time and money in campaigning for Mr. Obama until he is elected PRESIDENT."


. </div></div>
Ahhhhh ... label boy is back. I guess that's easier for you than putting thought and/or effort into something.

Not a republican here at all ... but, facts always have given you problems.

LWW

Jeff
07-22-2008, 07:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Ahhhhh ... label boy is back. I guess that's easier for you than putting thought and/or effort into something.

Not a republican here at all ... but, facts always have given you problems.

LWW </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Never left, just been sitting back counting the votes you are providing for Obama.

But you are right about one thing, it is pretty easy for me to let you make a fool of yourself time and time again. Not much work involved there.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
07-22-2008, 07:44 AM
Parrot want a cracker?

LWW

Jeff
07-22-2008, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Parrot want a cracker?

LWW </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Dictionary.com

id·i·ot
Pronunciation[id-ee-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.
<span style="color: #FF0000">3. See LWW</span>

[Origin: 1250–1300; ME &lt; L idiōta &lt; Gk idités private person, layman, person lacking skill or expertise, equiv. to idiō- (lengthened var. of idio- idio-, perh. by analogy with stratiōtés professional soldier, deriv. of stratiá army) + -tés agent n. suffix]

—Synonyms 1. fool, half-wit; imbecile; dolt, dunce, numskull, <span style="color: #FF0000">Ducky, LWW</span>.

pooltchr
07-22-2008, 06:22 PM
Dee,
I agree we need to support our President until he or she shows they no longer deserve that support. The problem I see is that the Obama camp have already stacked the deck. I think the media will hesitate to be critical or even offer up any really tough questions for fear of being tagged as racist. They didn't just play the race card...they trumped us with it before the game even started.

I also find it interesting that when his campaign first started, he made it a point to state he wasn't "black", but a product of a mixed marriage. Now that it might be to his advantage, he is suddenly the "black" candidate. I have to admire the strategy behind his campaign. I don't particularly like it, but you gotta admit, it's quite effective. He has the majority of black votes because he is black, and the white collar well educated vote because he acts white. And all he really is is another hack politician from the south side of Chicago...corrupt and corruptable.

Steve

mike60
07-22-2008, 07:07 PM
Sack, These are called "push polls", asked to provide a set answer more to prove an opinion than to find new opinions.
I realize you already know this it's for the wingbats.

mike60

wolfdancer
07-22-2008, 10:37 PM
I'm sorry , but I have no idea about what you are trying to say, or imply.
My two "points"....if the poll was intended to get B, or C as a reply..it failed.
And like it or not, Obama is a bigger story then McCain.
For the record, I like neither candidate, but any change from the present admin will be positive in most people's minds.

wolfdancer
07-22-2008, 10:48 PM
Gee, I hate to butt in on a private conversation but, your butt is being handed to you on this exchange with Jeff

sack316
07-23-2008, 07:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack, These are called "push polls", asked to provide a set answer more to prove an opinion than to find new opinions.
I realize you already know this it's for the wingbats.

mike60 </div></div>

Yeah, I just found it incredibly interesting that the answer sought after was not even close to a majority (roughly 20% negative as opposed to 80% affirmative at the time I posted). Of course, that seems to be lost here unfortunately save for you and I apparently. Of course this poll has no scientific value, nor does the poll itself in reality "mean anything", other than showing apparently respondants aren't as blind to things as I would have assumed they would be.

On a side note, IMHO, this could wind up bad for Obama. ALL the extra coverage is more likely to expose any slip up he may have (which, to his great credit is few and far between considering the microscope he is under). He may, in fact, become overexposed. What I mean is (and this poll may be useful for it), he may get seen and heard so much people actually tire of him. The shiny new may wear off too quickly. Like that hit song you love so much until it gets played a million times a day... then you just wanna vomit when you hear it again. Also, the media is championing him now, but they can turn so fast sometimes for no apparent reason.

Sack