elchip: 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.

OK - maybe the press coverage doesn't match the "first 100 days" approval ratings, but they sure as hell are a better match for the overall average approval rating. So maybe press coverage is a better indicator of overall performance.

Would it end the WHARRGARBL in this thread if I told you all that this has been going on in Presidential press conferences forever? That is, pre-selecting the questioner (but not the question).

Yes, b-b-b-but Bush did it. Now you can have the discussion of whether the practice is right or wrong.

You will notice that that practice is not extended to White House daily pressers with Robert Gibbs, as this exchange shows.

(And for the millionth time, news is only something that should be "busted" if you're a propagandist.)

chipspastic: 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?

I don't know, and frankly I don't care. I did a 10 second google search for something you apparently refuse to look up yourself. Do your own legwork.

All that transcript had was Chip Reid saying "You done wrong!!! I can't cite anything, but I know you did it!!" and Gibby was just falling back on [citation needed].

Yeah, the HuffPo thing was a bit...off, but that was hardly a softball question. Come back to me when Jeff Gannon asks Obama how awesome he REALLY is.

moralpanic:

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?

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group (new window)

Poll indicates more Americans call themselves 'pro-life' (new window)

I am against Creationism in school. I am for repealing don't ask/don't tell and I support civil unions. You can keep going but you are wrong so far (I know I let pesky reality get in the way).

I'd like to see a different press secretary. I'm not a fan of Gibbs, there's something off about him that's just wrong for the job, and I don't think he inspires confidence or authority. I liked Dee Dee Myers, wish Obama would bring her back.

And good on Helen, keep putting feet to the fire, no matter who is in office.

conservatives are the largest segment of the population and their favorite news source has the best ratings.

oh, AND they are utterly persecuted and have no voice in public matters.

You have to wonder how all that came to pass.

Hang On Voltaire: moralpanic:

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?

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group (new window)

Poll indicates more Americans call themselves 'pro-life' (new window)

I am against Creationism in school. I am for repealing don't ask/don't tell and I support civil unions. You can keep going but you are wrong so far (I know I let pesky reality get in the way).

The first poll asked people how they self-identify, not what their actual views are. If Gallup had asked those people about their individual views, they would most certainly skew more liberal than they believe. Add to that the tar-and-feathering the term "liberal" has taken over the last century, and...

And that second poll about abortion has been called a pretty obvious outlier, meaning no other poll can replicate that result, so its methodology was flawed. Use the Google machine.

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

I LOL'd

Hang On Voltaire: moralpanic:

That's because REALITY is liberal to you kooks.


That old gag

And you guys have been waving the liberal media flag for what? 30 freaking years. . .you know, before you stole the idea from Truman back when he was talking about liberal Republicans. .before you re-branded neo-liberalism into conservatism.

We to go Chip and Helen!!!!

Make no mistake about it, plenty of kids are naive enough, and even more adults are dumb enough to believe these "town hall meetings" and other scripted events are actually on the up and up.

Mordant: You have to wonder how all that came to pass.

I can't nail down the 'how', but I think it happened sometime between 2001 and 2008.

Hang On Voltaire: They covered for him for all those things.

The fact that you think he needed to be "covered for" because of the flaps over arugula lettuce, dijon mustard or the whitey tape (among other things) is a more scathing indictment of you than the media.

Wait a sec (and with all due respect to Helen Thomas), the WH press corps didn't have the nutsac to call out the Bush Administration for doing the same thing but now that Obama's the President they have the nutsac to say so?

WH Press Corps = Chickens**t.

Rwa2play: Wait a sec (and with all due respect to Helen Thomas), the WH press corps didn't have the nutsac to call out the Bush Administration for doing the same thing but now that Obama's the President they have the nutsac ability to say so?

WH Press Corps = Chickens**t.

FTFY

Unless you prefer the tone of this thread, in which case my response turns to: "Of course, he's history's greatest monster!"

There is a small chance, however unlikely, that this Admin's scripting of questions and mutual masterbation between them and the press could be thawing.

I wouldn't count on it though.

The Why Not Guy: Hang On Voltaire: They covered for him for all those things.

The fact that you think he needed to be "covered for" because of the flaps over arugula lettuce, dijon mustard or the whitey tape (among other things) is a more scathing indictment of you than the media.

Welcome to the world of grown-ups where ones actions have consequences. All the little paste eaters who jumped on board for all the BS crap about lettuce and mustard and kenyan socialist bogeymen are now going to be taken as seriously as they deserve for having done so.

If anyone doesn't like that and wants to be taken seriously instead then perhaps they should look at themselves to see what they need to change.

Of course the people who need to hear that are probably busy frantically submitting "OMFG !! HOPEYCHANGEY!!!" headlines linking to NewsMax right now, so they won't hear it.

Car_Ramrod: chipspastic: 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?

I don't know, and frankly I don't care. I did a 10 second google search for something you apparently refuse to look up yourself. Do your own legwork.

I did the same search and found the same graphs before they were posted, but when anyone makes claims like that, they should be able to back them up.

printboy: Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama's press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.

"When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you," Thomas said.


And then the Huffington post asked an extremely tough question.

Subby is a callow shiat for brains it seems.

Helen is primarily upset at the fact that a blogger was called on at a presidential press conference. She's been a gadfly for years, but it doesn't mean she can't have an inflated sense of self-worth and a desire to protect her exalted status as a member of the White House press corps.

Her comments are solely about protecting her turf from dirty outsiders who don't deserve to ask the president questions.

Jairzinho: Hang On Voltaire: DarnoKonrad:

Do not go gentle into that good night, Voltaire. Never let that liberal media lie die in the light. Rage, rage against the dying of the Right.



Source (new window)

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America. (new window)



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!

I assume there's a "neutral" choice.

You can pretty much change Obama to Bush and you have the Fark threads from years ago.

The greatest part is watching one side condemn the other side for the same thing they were doing for 8 years. Of course the side that was complaining for 8 years is now doing the same thing they were complaining about as well. CLASSIC!

ebonic pickle: Helen is primarily upset at the fact that a blogger was called on at a presidential press conference. She's been a gadfly for years, but it doesn't mean she can't have an inflated sense of self-worth and a desire to protect her exalted status as a member of the White House press corps.

Her comments are solely about protecting her turf from dirty outsiders who don't deserve to ask the president questions.

Ummmm, no. The scripted "town hall" meetings are where the dirty 'outsiders' hand picked by Barack's people get to ask questions.

Libs see Huffpo as legit.

Car_Ramrod: Rwa2play: Wait a sec (and with all due respect to Helen Thomas), the WH press corps didn't have the nutsac to call out the Bush Administration for doing the same thing but now that Obama's the President they have the nutsac ability to say so?

WH Press Corps = Chickens**t.

FTFY

Unless you prefer the tone of this thread, in which case my response turns to: "Of course, he's history's greatest monster!"

My apologies.

The WH Press Corps are just a bunch of cowards anyway.

Russky: You can pretty much change Obama to Bush and you have the Fark threads from years ago.

The greatest part is watching one side condemn the other side for the same thing they were doing for 8 years. Of course the side that was complaining for 8 years is now doing the same thing they were complaining about as well. CLASSIC!

I know. I personally just ordered 17 pallets of Newsweek issues so I can be constantly exposed to the media glow about Obama on my way to the next Town Hall meeting that I have been attending religiously since January after cursing Bush for years over them.

Haha, funny how subby is all up in arms about the White House and the press now that it's Obama. And so he's cheering on Helen Thomas, who was relegated to ghetto status by the previous administration so she wouldn't raise a fuss...

..when they did things like bring a male prostitute in as a "journalist" to lob softball questions at Bush. How can Thomas possibly say it's gotten worse than that?

Ball Sack Obama: mmm... pancake: Holy crap, this thread has gone into "B-b-but Bush!!!!!" overdrive. When did the Bush administration become the new standard of excellence for Obama? I thought this guy was going to be BETTER than the last guy.

It's all they've got. There's no defending this bullshiat.

Just like there was no defense for when Bush was doing it, yet when folks were screaming then, it was the republicans attempting to defend him just as the democrats attempt to defend Obama now.

You're all farking ignorant sheep.

JokerMattly: Given who was on the other ticket, I'd make the choice again in a heartbeat.

and THIS

If any of you actually think Sarah Palin should get anywhere remotely near that much power, I shudder for our future. My bias against her has very little to do with her religious nuttiness (I was raised Catholic - went to church twice a week), but more becuase of her sheer idiocy and lame attempts to capitalize on "America is never wrong patriots."

/republican
//voted for Obama

Helen Thomas has been awesome since the early 17th century.

Klingon Penis: Would it end the WHARRGARBL in this thread if I told you all that this has been going on in Presidential press conferences forever? That is, pre-selecting the questioner (but not the question).

Yes, b-b-b-but Bush did it. Now you can have the discussion of whether the practice is right or wrong.

You will notice that that practice is not extended to White House daily pressers with Robert Gibbs, as this exchange shows.

(And for the millionth time, news is only something that should be "busted" if you're a propagandist.)

I beleive the canned response to your statement is: I thought there was CHANGE. Huuurrrrr.

Interesting...

Clinton is the only president in 50 years to leave office with higher approval rating than he started with.

Subby apparently has not followed Helen Thomas' career very closely. He probably heard Limbaugh call her a librul a few years back, and believed it without question. Next time do your homework, subby, and you won't embarrass yourself so much.

As for the objection, I have zero problem with coordinating questions, or telling the press who will be called on. It's just more orderly. Chip Reid did accuse them of screening the questions, and if that's true, then that's way the fark out of line. I'd be interested to see if he has evidence of that. And if so, he should present it and shame the administration into knocking it the fark off.

aurorous: hey never qualified that with "Must be smarter than Bush" "Must be more ethical than Bush"

Yeah...uh...you could pretty much swing a dead cat and hit someone with those qualifications, dude. Or do you have amnesia?

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Interesting...

Clinton is the only president in 50 years to leave office with higher approval rating than he started with.

That is interesting. I wonder where Obama will be at in 2012 and 2016.

ayenull: Klingon Penis: Would it end the WHARRGARBL in this thread if I told you all that this has been going on in Presidential press conferences forever? That is, pre-selecting the questioner (but not the question).

Yes, b-b-b-but Bush did it. Now you can have the discussion of whether the practice is right or wrong.

You will notice that that practice is not extended to White House daily pressers with Robert Gibbs, as this exchange shows.

(And for the millionth time, news is only something that should be "busted" if you're a propagandist.)

I beleive the canned response to your statement is: I thought there was CHANGE. Huuurrrrr.

Most people tend not to respond to his usual teen angst ridden wharrrgarbl. Hurrr. Eleventy. Durrrr. Et al.

Rwa2play: My apologies.

The WH Press Corps are just a bunch of cowards anyway.

We're in agreement there. No matter who is in power, they are embarassing, with exceptions few and far between.

AspectRatio: It's OK when Bush does it, though.

"Uh... well, heh heh, um... heh... shucks, Don, that question wudn't on th' list... hehe heh he...."

Eat shiat, republican coonts.

Why do some of you people think Democrats can't disagree with Obama? I voted for a President, not a tool that needs to rely on Huffington Post to ask tough, un-biased questions. You're worse than any of the Republicans when it comes to partisanship.

Russky: You can pretty much change Obama to Bush and you have the Fark threads from years ago.

The greatest part is watching one side condemn the other side for the same thing they were doing for 8 years. Of course the side that was complaining for 8 years is now doing the same thing they were complaining about as well. CLASSIC!

Clearly, the dopes who can't see obvious differences and go with the "both parties are duh same, hurrrr" are still around, too.

This is retarded having the press selected the night before is somehow a lot worse than pre-selecting them that day?
I can see complaining that the press should not be selected at all it should be a random lottery but to pretend when the selection process is done is somehow "controlling the media", is stupid.

Come on press ask things like:

Don't ask don't tell, policy.

Is there further budget cuts?

How things are going in Afghanistan.

Start asking real question instead of your little bullshiat "gotchas".

They are too busy with their gotcha games catching people in things that don't actually make any difference.


We have 2 wars and an economic crisis but the most important things is WHEN press people are selected?

678583: Why do some of you people think Democrats can't disagree with Obama? I voted for a President, not a tool that needs to rely on Huffington Post to ask tough, un-biased questions on the behalf of someone in Iran because they've done a great job covering the situation on the ground over there. You're worse than any of the Republicans when it comes to partisanship.

Many Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever disagree with the President on some things, but nothing as stupid as this.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Interesting...

Clinton is the only president in 50 years to leave office with higher approval rating than he started with.

...despite of Monica, Waco, Elian, Oklahoma City, the Cole and a backstabbing Congress. Now imagine if he had had an artifical push like W did with 9/11.

Russky: You can pretty much change Obama to Bush and you have the Fark threads from years ago.

The greatest part is watching one side condemn the other side for the same thing they were doing for 8 years. Of course the side that was complaining for 8 years is now doing the same thing they were complaining about as well. CLASSIC!



Call me when Obama calls on a planted gay prostitute as a "reporter" and then we'll talk ok?

Until then STFU with the "they are both the same" BS.

I never complained Bush selected the press members like people are now complaining for Obama, I DID complain when they were not real press and were plants and just there to ask bullshiat question.

So there is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Corvus: This is retarded having the press selected the night before is somehow a lot worse than pre-selecting them that day?
I can see complaining that the press should not be selected at all it should be a random lottery but to pretend when the selection process is done is somehow "controlling the media", is stupid

/this. The press is just pissed because bloggers are getting asked questions now.

HOWEVER, Chip Reid also accused the administration of prescreeing questions. If this is true, then this is very very wrong.

chaoswolf: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Interesting...

Clinton is the only president in 50 years to leave office with higher approval rating than he started with.

That is interesting. I wonder where Obama will be at in 2012 and 2016.

I figure it would have been higher if not for the scandal. Most people love a good drama, but don't actually care about who puts what body part into/onto whoever else when it comes to the polls. So while the scandal probably muted his popularity, it didn't hurt it enough to cancel out the stock market boom.

Clinton was lucky to preside over such a huge boom. Just like Bush was unlucky to get caught in the inevitable contraction.

That said, I firmly believe Bush actively made things much worse than it should have been.

Car_Ramrod: Many Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever disagree with the President on some things, but nothing as stupid as this.

That's a nice way to completely avoid my point. The amount of cognitive dissonance some of you guys display is incredibly, I'm amazed your heads don't explode. Did we not just get done berating Bush for being such a moronic tool, not keeping campaign promises, and generally being a non-transparent liar? Yet when Obama does the same thing, people refuse to acknowledge it and just start rambling about Bush and the evil Republicans and how "teh stupid is rampant blah blah". Whatever, it's no use.

eddiesocket: HOWEVER, Chip Reid also accused the administration of prescreeing questions. If this is true, then this is very very wrong.


Yes for the public forum!

Do you really want "President Obama your a socialist, and ACORN is trying to take over America!,,, (30 mins)"

Do you want that at the health forum?

Everyone would pre-screen a forums questions. You don't want 90% loon questions that have nothing to do with healthcare.

You do think that's a good idea?

swahnhennessy: While you're over there in fantasy land, could you get me a hot redhead in a green Ferrari?


Does Ferrari even sell green?

Why would you want a green Ferrari?

678583: Car_Ramrod: Many Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever disagree with the President on some things, but nothing as stupid as this.

That's a nice way to completely avoid my point. The amount of cognitive dissonance some of you guys display is incredibly, I'm amazed your heads don't explode. Did we not just get done berating Bush for being such a moronic tool, not keeping campaign promises, and generally being a non-transparent liar? Yet when Obama does the same thing, people refuse to acknowledge it and just start rambling about Bush and the evil Republicans and how "teh stupid is rampant blah blah". Whatever, it's no use.

I was so busy cursing Bush for being a Dutch illegal immigrant who spilled Dijonnaise on a fraudulent copy of his birth certificate that I don't remember where I stood on the important issues about his Presidency.

678583: Car_Ramrod: Many Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever disagree with the President on some things, but nothing as stupid as this.

That's a nice way to completely avoid my point. The amount of cognitive dissonance some of you guys display is incredibly, I'm amazed your heads don't explode. Did we not just get done berating Bush for being such a moronic tool, not keeping campaign promises, and generally being a non-transparent liar? Yet when Obama does the same thing, people refuse to acknowledge it and just start rambling about Bush and the evil Republicans and how "teh stupid is rampant blah blah". Whatever, it's no use.

So what exactly is your problem with the Huffington Post "incident"?

How about you go into some threads about Obama not immediately revoking DOMA or DADT and look at all the lefties disagreeing with the President and being disappointed with him not keeping campaign promises (yet). There's no cognitive dissonance there. I'm not sure what you are having an issue with. Should we get outraged at everything the opposition tells us to so we can avoid claims of bias?