Jairzinho:

If I'm reading that chart correctly, around 43% of Obama's coverage is positive. That means that around 57% is non-positive. Damn! You convinced me, OMG! the press is in bed with Obama!

Don't bother comparing it to other Presidents.

subby , how many days did you "cheer" this guy?

elchip: chipspastic: Your graph might actually mean something if the press coverage was compared to approval ratings, but without context it's meaningless.

Are the approval ratings high because of the media coverage, or is the media coverage high because of the approval ratings?

Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

Next let's see kittens ranked from cutest to ugliest indexed by color.

there is nothing cuter than an orange cat. Named "Pumpkin"...natch.

Things I've learned from this thread:

1. Obama is the greatest president ever.
2. If he does anything wrong it is okay because he is a politician and that is what politicians do.
3. Bush did it too so it is okay.

elchip: Hang On Voltaire: She was allowed to ask questions in press briefings under Bush

Although they moved her to the back and demoted her from her traditional status of asking the first question, IIRC.

I like how she was silenced for 3 years (new window)

Hang On Voltaire: Jairzinho:

If I'm reading that chart correctly, around 43% of Obama's coverage is positive. That means that around 57% is non-positive. Damn! You convinced me, OMG! the press is in bed with Obama!

Don't bother comparing it to other Presidents.

B..b..b..Bush!

Hang On Voltaire: Jairzinho:

If I'm reading that chart correctly, around 43% of Obama's coverage is positive. That means that around 57% is non-positive. Damn! You convinced me, OMG! the press is in bed with Obama!

Don't bother comparing it to other Presidents.

Which would matter if the identity of the president was the only variable that has changed.

In the end, your chart is silly. Most importantly, what constitutes "favorable coverage" is so subjective as to render its assessment and its ability to be compared across presidents as irrelevant.

elchip:

Although they moved her to the back and demoted her from her traditional status of asking the first question, IIRC.

Yes. She writes an opinion column that I think one or two papers run.

So, let me get this straight - the "outrage" is that the White House let a reporter (the national editor) for the Huffington Post know that they would be calling on him at a press conference. Further, since the Huffington Post had been soliciting questions fo said reporter to ask from protestors in Iran, the White House KNEW that the question he would ask would be about Iran.


This is "controlling" the news how exactly? Does anyone in their right mind think that the questions that day weren't going to be primarily about Iran?

37% positive coverage on a president with a 65% approval rating.
You've sold me. Damn liberal bias.

amazing_live_seamonkeys: 1. Obama is the greatest president ever.

Who said that?

"Helen, have you been skipping out on your Kool-Aid? The Grammaton Cleric will be displeased!"

amazing_live_seamonkeys: Things I've learned from this thread:

1. Obama is the greatest president ever.
2. If he does anything wrong it is okay because he is a politician and that is what politicians do.
3. Bush did it too so it is okay.

I sincerely doubt you learned anything today.

Car_Ramrod: First, how can you discuss change without mentioning Bush? That's like saying in May, "It's not perfect out, but at least it's nicer than in February. It's getting better" and someone replying, "but.. but.. but.. Winter!"

That's my point, there is no change in this case.

Car_Ramrod: Second, if Thomas wasn't allowed to ask questions to the Bush administration, and she is allowed to ask questions to Obama's, isn't that indicative of a positive change towards openness?

Obviously Thomas doesn't see it that way.

Things I've learned from this thread:

1. Obama is the worst president ever.
2. If he does anything the same as his predecessors, it's a tragedy and we got duped on false promises of change.
3. Bush has no relevency whatsoever.

This is fun.

chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

Hang On Voltaire: As opposed to the Palin thread which is full of mature political thought

I understand that you live on this site, so you'll forgive me if I missed a thread.

Was the Palin thread full of the hypocrisy on full display in this thread, with all the freepers cheering Helen Thomas? Are these people more lacking in memory, or shame?

amazing_live_seamonkeys: Things I've learned from this thread:

1. Obama is the greatest president ever.
2. If he does anything wrong it is okay because he is a politician and that is what politicians do.
3. Bush did it too so it is okay.

Pretty much. Don't question the Obama.

BritneysSpeculum:

Which would matter if the identity of the president was the only variable that has changed.

In the end, your chart is silly. Most importantly, what constitutes "favorable coverage" is so subjective as to render its assessment and its ability to be compared across presidents as irrelevant.

Oh please. You know the tone of coverage for Obama has been worshipful. Look at the covers of Time and Newsweek the last year he is literally cast as Messianic.

elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.

If Helen see's the squelching then it must be pretty bad.

But also today there is a story of the WaPo selling access to officials for lobbyists????


"WASHINGTON POST SELLS 'OFF-THE-RECORD' ACCESS TO OBAMA OFFICIALS, LAWMAKERS AND ITS OWN REPORTERS, EDITORS -- $25,000 TO $250,000...


Business as usual? For the press.

And seems business is worse under Obama....

GoldSpider: Car_Ramrod: First, how can you discuss change without mentioning Bush? That's like saying in May, "It's not perfect out, but at least it's nicer than in February. It's getting better" and someone replying, "but.. but.. but.. Winter!"

That's my point, there is no change in this case.

Obama is exactly the same as Bush in how he deals with openness and the press?

GoldSpider: Car_Ramrod: Second, if Thomas wasn't allowed to ask questions to the Bush administration, and she is allowed to ask questions to Obama's, isn't that indicative of a positive change towards openness?

Obviously Thomas doesn't see it that way.

Good thing I didn't ask Thomas. Unless you let her do all your thinking for you.

Shaggy_C: Mordant: If the media is overwhelmingly too prone to favoring Obama then we should go after the sources that have the highest ratings to make the most impact on the problem.

It's an 'us' vs 'them' thing. Add up all the rest, does it approximate the viewership of Fox?

Not sure. I don't have a ton of free time so I actually use Fark as an index to what news needs further attention.

So I guess the bulk of what I see comes from NewsMax, News Busters, Fox, NRO, WSJ, and the rest of the low hanging fruit that almost every "conservative" on Fark feel is the best place to get info.

I call SHENANIGANS.

Recall, if you will, what the topic was for the prepackaged answer.

Iran

Why are the reporters all in a dither? It's not like Bush Administration didn't have an iron grip on the info coming out of the White House, and Obama gets in trouble for one prepackaged question/response on an issue of international politics?

And it's not like the press doesn't ever try to troll-bait Obama into corners, trying to elicit certain responses with loaded questions anyway.

SHENANIGANS.

savage henry:

I understand that you live on this site, so you'll forgive me if I missed a thread.

Was the Palin thread full of the hypocrisy on full display in this thread, with all the freepers cheering Helen Thomas? Are these people more lacking in memory, or shame?

You would prefer that they just ignore when Helen does something they like. The friggin headline acknowledges that Helen is a partisan tool and that they never liked her.

/not subby

elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I can look but I seriously doubt that. Remember the time frame of that silly chart is the first 6 months or so of the presidency. In the first 6 months of his presidency, nearly 50% of the country thought that Bush stole the White House. Clinton had his foibles (travelgate et al) but his real decline did not come until year 2 with the debacle that was Hillarycare.

Hang On Voltaire: Oh please. You know the tone of coverage for Obama has been worshipful. Look at the covers of Time and Newsweek the last year he is literally cast as Messianic.

What kind of braindead moran reads Newsweek unless they get really bored at the airport?

1. Obama is the greatest president ever.
2. If he does anything wrong it is okay because he is a politician and that is what politicians do.
3. Bush did it too so it is okay.
4. If you don't like Obama your a troll.

chipspastic: elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.



You're welcome.

Hang On Voltaire:
I don't think the press is never going to criticize Obama. They will. That doesn't make them non partisan. They also gave Bush positive coverage occasionally. However, as a whole, it is impossible not to say that the mainstream press is liberal and reports in that fashion. There is not even an argument anymore. You are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts

That's because REALITY is liberal to you kooks.

So now the cover of Newsweek is the market indicator for all media? Why don't you show Newsweek covers from 2001?

amazing_live_seamonkeys: Jairzinho: Hang On Voltaire: DarnoKonrad:If I'm reading that chart correctly, around 43% of Obama's coverage is positive. That means that around 57% is non-positive. Damn! You convinced me, OMG! the press is in bed with Obama

Or you could click the link he provided you twit.

FTFL: 37% of Obama's coverage has been positive, 40% neutral and 23% negative.

Shouldn't you be on a corner rallying people behind Obama's health care plan like a good sheep?

FTFA: (The part where the graph comes from) The study found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed

Let's see: I said 43% but it's really 42% Positive. And I said 57% but it is really 58% (20% Positive + 38% Neutral) for non-positive. Sorry I missed for THAT MUCH! I must really be a complete biased hack for doing so! ....TWIT!

chipspastic: elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.

They were the same (new window)

Give 'em Hell, Hellen!

Thank the gods for Helen Thomas. We as a nation desperately need a White House press room FULL of journalists like her. It's really sad that she is the exception rather than the rule.

It will be a very dark day for this nation the day she dies/retires.

Car_Ramrod: chipspastic: elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.



You're welcome.

Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

Wow, the only president to leave office better liked than he entered was a Democrat. How about that.

chipspastic: I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.

My apologies elchip. I stand (or sit more accurately) corrected.

netcentric: If Helen see's the squelching then it must be pretty bad.

But also today there is a story of the WaPo selling access to officials for lobbyists????


"WASHINGTON POST SELLS 'OFF-THE-RECORD' ACCESS TO OBAMA OFFICIALS, LAWMAKERS AND ITS OWN REPORTERS, EDITORS -- $25,000 TO $250,000...


Business as usual? For the press.

And seems business is worse under Obama....

Don't forget... it's nonconfrontational access.

chipspastic: Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

I was only talking about their approval ratings 100 days into the presidency, which is what the "press coverage" graph was detailing. 9/11 didn't happen within Bush's first 100 days.

100 days in, Obama > Bush > Clinton.

Shaggy_C: Hang On Voltaire: Oh please. You know the tone of coverage for Obama has been worshipful. Look at the covers of Time and Newsweek the last year he is literally cast as Messianic.

What kind of braindead moran reads Newsweek unless they get really bored at the airport?

That's a crying shame... as a hardcore "Lib" it appears that Newsweek's fellation of Obama is tailor made for me, and yet I never even glance at a cover. I wonder why.

sniffle... sniffle...

What's going on here? All the usual Obama apologists and spin doctors (que Sin Doctors pics) haven't made their appearance. There must be a Palin or Fox News ELEVENTY thread going on.....

chipspastic: Car_Ramrod: chipspastic: elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.



You're welcome.

Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

How about looking at the damn graph and seeing where they both started off. Bush started as higher than Clinton did.

moralpanic:

That's because REALITY is liberal to you kooks.


That old gag

3_Butt_Cheeks: What's going on here? All the usual Obama apologists and spin doctors (que Sin Doctors pics) haven't made their appearance. There must be a Palin or Fox News ELEVENTY thread going on.....

I heard there was a firmware upgrade for the Obots.

Coincidence?

Car_Ramrod: chipspastic: Car_Ramrod: chipspastic: elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.



You're welcome.

Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

How about looking at the damn graph and seeing where they both started off. Bush started as higher than Clinton did.

Barely. Is the difference is statistically significant?

Hang On Voltaire:

You would prefer that they just ignore when Helen does something they like.

I would prefer they acknowledge their irrational hatred of her.

No chance, right?

How long until freepers resume calling for her death?

Car_Ramrod:

Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

How about looking at the damn graph and seeing where they both started off. Bush started as higher than Clinton did.

Hang On Voltaire: moralpanic:

That's because REALITY is liberal to you kooks.


That old gag

How is it a gag? It's obviously the US arc is now for some sort of national health care system, that's liberal. The US is pro-choice, that's liberal. Against Creationism in school, again liberal. Giving gay rights in military and civil unions, that's liberal. Regulating the banking system, that's liberal. Do i really need to keep going?