Wait, how are they defining "negative"?

I mean, are we talking attacks on character? On actions?

Or merely saying "We checked the statement he said and it was false"?

Because the former is negative, but it's not journalistic and I doubt it happened much off the op ed pages. Are you even counting the op ed pages?

The latter? That's actually how neutral journalism works. Just the facts, ma'am.

But, then again, stories like this one that present absolutely nothing of substance just goes to show that, positive or negative, journalism is a farking joke in this country.

Weaver95: strap in - Limbaugh starting rant will fire off in a few min.

@weaverXP if you want to join the fun/madness.

Oxycontin for the Oxycontin God! Poolboys for the Poolboy throne.

//Meh, doesn't quite work.

For people looking through the filter of hate.....anything that isn't claiming he is evil is a lie.

I'm sure the "BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI" crowd will be here momentarily.

Weaver95: strap in - Limbaugh starting rant will fire off in a few min.

@weaverXP if you want to join the fun/madness.

Was I imagining things or did he imply that Chris Christie was "gay" for Obama during his last show? I try to stay away from his useless rants, but thought I heard something like this. Struck me as more offensive than usual.

Freudian_slipknot: Wait, how are they defining "negative"?

I mean, are we talking attacks on character? On actions?

Or merely saying "We checked the statement he said and it was false"?

It sounded like there was a huge hole in their methodology if they're ranking something like "Struggling Obama's Job Numbers Not Cutting It" with "Romney Is Blatantly Lying About Everything." It needs to be split along the lines of justifiable negative coverage. If one of them punched a baby in the mouth, that's the sort of negative coverage that should happen.

spelletrader: I'm sure the "BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI" crowd will be here momentarily.

That's pretty much what this whole "liberal media" thing boils down to. That the major media outlets don't report the whackadoodle nonsense the conservative blogodome invent on a daily basis.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Freudian_slipknot: Wait, how are they defining "negative"?

I mean, are we talking attacks on character? On actions?

Or merely saying "We checked the statement he said and it was false"?

It sounded like there was a huge hole in their methodology if they're ranking something like "Struggling Obama's Job Numbers Not Cutting It" with "Romney Is Blatantly Lying About Everything." It needs to be split along the lines of justifiable negative coverage. If one of them punched a baby in the mouth, that's the sort of negative coverage that should happen.

Romney's plan of lying so much, the media can't possibly cover it all or risk being accused of having a bias is going swimmingly.

JolobinSmokin: I'll have the bonus of my wife having a baby on Tuesday so, i'll probably not be paying to close attention unless the little bugger slips out really fast.

/lord knows i've plowed it wide and deep
//amirite?

Your story checks out.

Congrats, by the way. I hope your kid isn't a CHUD.

Wyalt Derp: Yeah, but Pew is biased.

We need Chalmers to come unpew their results

rthanu: Wyalt Derp: Yeah, but Pew is biased.

We need Chalmers to come unpew their results

Or Chambers.. whatever the hell that guys name is...

exick: I had to dig a little bit, but I found a vague description of their methodology.

For mainstream media, the study included the three broadcast networks, the three major cable news networks, the 12 most popular news websites, 11 newspaper front pages and news programming from PBS and NPR along with radio headlines from ABC and CBS news services. From these outlets, PEJ researchers watched, listened or read every story in the sample and counted each assertion for whether it was positive in nature about a candidate, negative in nature or neutral. For a story to be deemed to have a distinct tone, positive or negative assertions had to outnumber the other by a factor of three to two. Any story in which that was not case was coded as mixed.

So they counted assertions and tone, without taking truth or facts into consideration? By this metric, a Fox derpfest would weigh the same as a simple fact-check on a Romney speech.

theknuckler_33:
That's pretty much what this whole "liberal media" thing boils down to. That the major media outlets don't report the whackadoodle nonsense the conservative blogodome invent on a daily basis.

Weaver95:
Limbaugh is pushing the Benghazi stuff hardcore today.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats:
It's really kinda pissing off the Freep crowd that they can't get much more traction on that issue than they did on Fast and Furious. Pretty great to watch.

I have to admit, it has been cracking me up to watch them froth at the mouth. I picture them sitting around naked and covered in fried chicken grease, chanting:

BEN-GHA-ZI! BEN-GHA-ZI! BEN-GHA-ZI!

21 posts and no "pew pew pew" kitten?

I am disappoint.

Weaver95: strap in - Limbaugh starting rant will fire off in a few min.

@weaverXP if you want to join the fun/madness.

I think I wanna un-favorite you, just so I can favorite you all over again.

Well, when you FAIL.... news coverage of your job is also FAIL.

They are surprised?

Weaver95: spelletrader: I'm sure the "BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI" crowd will be here momentarily.

Limbaugh is pushing the Benghazi stuff hardcore today.



amirite?!!

/pounds head on wall

There's only so much polish you can put on a turd.
That doesn't mean negative coverage. Whiners.

Polly Ester: There's only so much polish you can put on a turd.
That doesn't mean negative coverage. Whiners.

I'm not sure that they've ever tried to polish Romney. The people who enjoy Romney's stench would probably be thrilled if they could buy a Glade Plug-In in a "Dog Shiat" scent.

You have to understand, the people who think Obama is the worst president ever VOTED FOR GEORGE W. BUSH TWICE. So that's about all you need to know about that.

Why is the coverage of Hurricane Sandy so biased against the storm? why??

Negative things get negative coverage.

Gee whiz, you mean a media owned by plutocrats and largely staffed by crypto-Israelis has been working against Obama? Color me shocked.

cryptozoophiliac: You have to understand, the people who think Obama is the worst president ever VOTED FOR GEORGE W. BUSH TWICE. So that's about all you need to know about that.

I think Obama "might" be the worst president ever, its between him and Carter. I voted for Carter and I have to apologize to you for that.
I also did not vote for George W. Bush twice.

Citrate1007: For people looking through the filter of hate.....anything that isn't claiming he is evil is a lie.

 

Yep.

Tyee: cryptozoophiliac: You have to understand, the people who think Obama is the worst president ever VOTED FOR GEORGE W. BUSH TWICE. So that's about all you need to know about that.

I think Obama "might" be the worst president ever, its between him and Carter. I voted for Carter and I have to apologize to you for that.
I also did not vote for George W. Bush twice.

How can you say Obama is worse than W?

kumanoki: I gotta do everydamnthing around here...

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 348x222]

Only thing that came to mind when I read the headline. Just scrolled down expecting at least one photo.

Pew study confirms liberal claim that media coverage of Obama* overwhelmingly truthful when it does actually occur

Try as it might not to, the media does occasionally have to report things.

Liberal blog backs liberal poll that defends liberal president. Film at 11:00.

media coverage of Obama* overwhelmingly negative

Of course it is.

Obama "farked up" the first debate, Obamacare goes too far/doesn't go far enough, Obama isn't going to be re-elected because of the economy, Obama told lies at the debate, too, hurr Obamaphone, Obama had better watch himself because this election isn't in the bag.

F*ck the media.

Blue_Blazer: Tyee: cryptozoophiliac: You have to understand, the people who think Obama is the worst president ever VOTED FOR GEORGE W. BUSH TWICE. So that's about all you need to know about that.

I think Obama "might" be the worst president ever, its between him and Carter. I voted for Carter and I have to apologize to you for that.
I also did not vote for George W. Bush twice.

How can you say Obama is worse than W?

When you speak without thought you can say anything.

"Dinosaurs and Jesus were on Noah's ark together in Texas back in 1776!"

Oh, look what I typed! That "Brain-Off" switch really is fun sometimes.

RolandGunner: Liberal blog backs liberal poll that defends liberal president. Film at 11:00.

"Liberal"? Obama?

BWAAAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAHAAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHA
HHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA'
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Hah Hah Hah!

Heh.

Oh, wow.

cubic_spleen: RolandGunner: Liberal blog backs liberal poll that defends liberal president. Film at 11:00.

"Liberal"? Obama?

BWAAAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAHAAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHA
HHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA'
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Hah Hah Hah!

Heh.

Oh, wow.

No true liberal would pass Obamacare.

beta_plus: cubic_spleen: RolandGunner: Liberal blog backs liberal poll that defends liberal president. Film at 11:00.

"Liberal"? Obama?

BWAAAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAHAAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHA
HHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAAAAAAAHAHAHAA'
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Hah Hah Hah!

Heh.

Oh, wow.

No true liberal would pass Obamacare.

Why, not enough government-funded programs in it?