PDA

View Full Version : Analysis: media screwing Romney like Gore/Kerry



Soflasnapper
10-03-2012, 11:56 AM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Yes, Mitt Romney Is Getting a Raw Deal From the Press</span>
John Cook

First off—there is no such thing as "the media." The people and entities who shape our political coverage represent a fractured, disaggregated, chaotic mass of divergent agendas and interests. While they often display pack behavior, they do not operate as a coordinated monolith. But that doesn't mean they're being fair to Mitt Romney. They're not.

Gawker, here. (http://gawker.com/5947910/yes-mitt-romney-is-getting-a-raw-deal-from-the-press?post=53133645)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The press is doing to Romney the same thing it did to John Kerry, and to Al Gore before him: Covering him as a loser. A weird loser. A distant loser, who is "uncomfortable in his own skin" and "failing to connect" with "regular voters." The contempt and pity for him as a candidate is almost palpable, and each moment in the campaign is distorted imperceptibly, as if by magnetism, to reinforce the Romney caricature. This is how we got a flurry of stories, for instance, about how Romney doesn't know why airplane windows don't roll down. </div></div>

I agree that this is the pack or herd mentality take on Romney, but that was the case with the allegedly liberal mainstream media about both Gore and Kerry as well.

eg8r
10-03-2012, 01:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree that this is the pack or herd mentality take on Romney, but that was the case with the allegedly liberal mainstream media about both Gore and Kerry as well. </div></div>Why would you use the word "but" like you are adding anything or offering any clarity to what the author said. He already said they did the same thing about Kerry and Gore in the first sentence of the quote.

We actually have it here on the board an awful lot. If not for the CNN link I posted we would be lead to believe Obama was running away with the election when clearly he is within a couple points.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-03-2012, 01:56 PM
The reason was to emphasize what he mentions in passing, that a similar character assassination was performed by the MSM against DEMOCRATS in recent elections.

That's to counter the claim that the MSM is liberal, and/or always lines up to support the Democrat in presidential elections.

Which, by portraying them as hapless losers, they certainly did not do in those two recent examples.

People especially forget that the allegedly uber-liberal Washington Post and the NY Times led the charge against Gore (using made up quotes, among other bad practices), NOT the right wing media (with Fox barely getting going at the time).

Even the London-based conservative Financial Times said the the NY Times and WaPost reporters were unable to hide their contempt, in their front page reporting on the Gore campaign.

NBC and Chris Matthews were among the leading boo-birds then, as well.

LWW
10-03-2012, 05:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree that this is the pack or herd mentality take on Romney, but that was the case with the allegedly liberal mainstream media about both Gore and Kerry as well. </div></div>

Oddly enough, neither you nor the author has cited a single instance of this Kerry/Gore victimization actually happening other than in the theater that is the dembot mind?

I remember the press fawning all over Kerry.

DiabloViejo
10-03-2012, 06:01 PM
You have selective memory, just like Romney. And you are full of sh*t too, just like Romney. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

eg8r
10-03-2012, 08:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reason was to emphasize </div></div>I think it is because the people you are hoping to reach are part of the 47% and they need to be told twice before it has a chance of sinking in.

eg8r

LWW
10-04-2012, 02:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have selective memory, just like Romney. And you are full of sh*t too, just like Romney. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </div></div>

Then help your brother out and supply a link to an example.

What's that?

You can't?

Imagine that.

Qtec
10-04-2012, 02:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oddly enough, neither you nor the author has cited a single instance of this Kerry/Gore victimization </div></div>

Swift Boat?

RING A BELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL???????????????????????



Q

LWW
10-04-2012, 08:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oddly enough, neither you nor the author has cited a single instance of this Kerry/Gore victimization </div></div>

Swift Boat?

RING A BELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL???????????????????????



Q </div></div>

1 - That wasn't the press, it was people who served with Kerry.

2 - It was the truth.

3 - If they wanted to get Kerry they would have made a big deal of his confession to being a war criminal.

Soflasnapper
10-04-2012, 10:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism says campaign coverage has rivaled that of 2004 in its negativity. The center began tracking media "narratives" about the candidates in 2000.

[...]

In 2004, 75 percent of the media narratives about the Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., were negative, compared with 70 percent for President George W. Bush, according to the organization.</div></div>

I notice you didn't claim the media was overly kind to Gore. Smart, because they attacked him severely, ridiculed him daily, etc.

As to Kerry, assuming you agree they were pretty negative toward W in 2004, that they were more negative by percentage of coverage to Kerry is most telling.

link (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120824/NEWS02/708249925)

Why were they negative?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just as the post-Labor Day conversation this year has been dominated by Romney’s woes, September ’04 was a brutal month for Kerry. Polls generally showed him running 6 to 8 points behind Bush, and panic and despair began to set in among Democrats, and to spill into the media’s coverage.

The perception took hold that Kerry was blowing a completely winnable election – that he was allowing Republicans to define him as a weak-willed flip-flopper, that he was too often playing to type, and that his campaign was failing to grasp and exploit the incumbent’s weaknesses. There were calls for a new strategy and a campaign staff shakeup. In a Sept. 16, 2004, column, Ellen Goodman wrote about the Democrats’ “September anxiety attack”:

It’s a day when the Bush bounce has hit Kerry supporters upside the head. The morning papers are full of polling reports suggesting that the president is on a roll. The pundits are full of rumors about a Kerry campaign shake-up.

The party that came out of the Boston convention in single-file unity has returned to its default position: a circular firing squad with the campaign strategists in the middle. The partisans in the street are frantic that the Bush campaign will “do it again” and take the low road to victory.

To anyone who’s been watching the current campaign, this should sound very familiar. Unlike Kerry, Romney never actually led his opponent during this campaign’s summer months, but he was close behind and Republicans were hopeful that a strong convention would push them into the lead. But the GOP’s Tampa gathering was a bust, and it was followed by a highly successful Democratic event in Charlotte – one that pushed Obama back into a clear lead and that prompted conservatives for the first time to confront the possibility they might lose in November. This has prompted the same very public second-guessing from his own party and campaign infighting that plagued Kerry in September ’04.

Kerry’s story offers a ray of hope for Romney for two reasons. The first is that Romney isn’t as far behind now as Kerry was at this same point. The Real Clear Politics average pegs Obama’s lead at just under 3 points (although this number could get worse in the coming days if Romney’s secretly recorded comments from a fundraiser earlier this year turn some voters against him). On this same day in 2004, Bush’s average lead was 6.7 points </div></div>

here (http://www.salon.com/topic/john_kerry/)

LWW
10-04-2012, 10:59 AM
MYTH SLAIN (http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/60-minutes-bush-tax-cuts-culpable-lack-armor-humvees-1112004)

Soflasnapper
10-04-2012, 11:58 AM
That doesn't address what you call the myth.

You've shown that people perceived the media this way or that.

The Pew survey mentioned REVIEWED the media in depth, and totaled up the positive v negative coverage, that no one person could be expected to see (as they'd be watching one, not 4 or 5, media outlet at a time, at least).

Even then, you hardly find landslide numbers, but plurality numbers, even as to mind-reading skills as to who the media supposedly wants.

For example:

Two polls released last week found that more people perceive the media tilting coverage in favor of Democrat John Kerry than in favor of Republican President George W. Bush.

Why would anyone assume the peoples' perception is based firmly on complete facts? As I mention, people cannot watch or read the entire media, and therefore do not do so. Any such perception would be based on fragmentary evidence, if any, and subject to what they'd been told about media bias.

So, what was the huge number of people who thought Kerry was getting media treatment tilted his way?

Gallup determined that 35 percent think coverage has tilted toward Kerry compared to just 16 percent who said it favored Bush.

While 27 percent described Kerry coverage as "unfair," 37 percent labeled Bush coverage as "unfair."

In other news, something like 40% of the people cannot name the current vice president.

You've presented a meta-analysis, about how the AMERICAN people (bless their ignorant hearts) THINK things are?

This shows anything, you know, FACTUAL, as compared to an actual complete survey of all media using Lexis/Nexis transcripts, etc., in what possible way?

Yes, I know the cretins at MRC put it together to imply that conclusion, but the case is thin. Especially when, as of that time, the right and the GOP had been screaming 'liberal media bias' from the top of their lungs off the rooftops for 20, 30 years or more. Confirmation bias is what they found, and not actually very much of it.