Clinton Interview with Chris Wallace

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,651
50,912
136
First, it's research done by an ultra lefty institution. Not surprising.

Ah yes, the good old argument where you declare there is media bias and then when you are shown research that disproves it then you just claim the researchers are biased too. Congratulations for ensuring that no amount of contrary evidence will ever be allowed to change your mind.

Second, that's from the primaries, where she was up against someone even further to the left of her. Now that she's going against the evil righties, the media is perfectly aligned in her corner, as expected.

So to be clear you're now giving reasons why the findings you think are biased are in fact correct? Huh?

Also, if the media was choosing their coverage based on relative ideology then why did Cruz have more favorable coverage than Trump and why did Trump have more favorable than Clinton? Trump was definitely to the left of Cruz and the right of Clinton. By your own logic this makes no sense. You seem to just be making up any excuse you can think of to convince yourself this can't be true.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
LOL @ people who do not understand why the media runs so many negative stories on Trump. The guy is a GOLD MINE. They'd kill to have a candidate like him in every election cycle.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,651
50,912
136
Another good example of how the "unbiased" media works:


That is Rachel Maddow's blog, lol, it says so pretty obviously at the top.

Why would a blog from a liberal opinion show be unbiased? Is Sean Hannity's blog supposed to be unbiased too?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Ah yes, the good old argument where you declare there is media bias and then when you are shown research that disproves it then you just claim the researchers are biased too. Congratulations for ensuring that no amount of contrary evidence will ever be allowed to change your mind.

Not "no evidence", how about evidence that isn't from a far left source.

So to be clear you're now giving reasons why the findings you think are biased are in fact correct? Huh?

No, reading and comprehension fail on your part. I didn't say the findings are correct, but it's clear the coverage she's going to get from the lefty media is going to be way better now that she's going up against a righty than when she was going against an ultra-lefty. Duh.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
That is Rachel Maddow's blog, lol, it says so pretty obviously at the top.

Why would a blog from a liberal opinion show be unbiased? Is Sean Hannity's blog supposed to be unbiased too?

It's an example. Of course it's not unbiased, just like I wouldn't expect it to be. The rest of the media isn't either.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,651
50,912
136
It's an example. Of course it's not unbiased, just like I wouldn't expect it to be. The rest of the media isn't either.

What is it an example of? You took a source that is explicitly biased and upfront about it and tried to use it as an example of the bias of 'unbiased' media. That makes literally zero sense.

Just admit it, you didn't realize it was from Rachel Maddow's blog.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,651
50,912
136
Not "no evidence", how about evidence that isn't from a far left source.

lol, so now you're dismissing the all research from the most prestigious research institution in the US, perhaps the world. Hokay. Please enlighten us with what sources you would consider acceptable.

No, reading and comprehension fail on your part. I didn't say the findings are correct, but it's clear the coverage she's going to get from the lefty media is going to be way better now that she's going up against a righty than when she was going against an ultra-lefty. Duh.

So why didn't Trump get better coverage than Cruz?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,651
50,912
136
Media bias was clearly liberal in 2007 and I highly doubt much has changed since. Note the PEJ-Shorenstein study results..."the most prestigious research institution in the US". Anyone who actually believes there's no such thing as liberal media bias lives in a bubble of self-deception and denial.

http://www.journalism.org/2007/10/29/the-media-sectors/

Speaking of a bubble of self-deception and denial, it seems that you have never read the PEJ-Shorenstein study as it in no way concludes the disparate coverage was due to liberal media bias. Funny thing about that is if you think that the 2007 study results indicate liberal bias in 2007 then by the same token there is conservative bias today.

Let me guess though, you will selectively decide one does and one doesn't. Calling the hypocrisy now.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
I guess all the Hillary haters are hanging out in the softball, crying in their beer over the e-mail thread today.

FUD is starting to loose it's effect, should have long ago.
 
Last edited:

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I just want to know if the conservative hit man Chris Wallace tried to take her down like that sniper in Bosnia.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Speaking of a bubble of self-deception and denial, it seems that you have never read the PEJ-Shorenstein study as it in no way concludes the disparate coverage was due to liberal media bias. Funny thing about that is if you think that the 2007 study results indicate liberal bias in 2007 then by the same token there is conservative bias today.

Let me guess though, you will selectively decide one does and one doesn't. Calling the hypocrisy now.
Really? Here's a few highlights from the PEJ-Shorenstein study.

The PEJ-Shorenstein study included 11 newspapers, examining front-page coverage.

<snip>

Another distinguishing characteristic of the print stories studied was tone. Democrats got much more positive coverage in the daily papers examined than they did elsewhere. Fully 59% of all stories about Democrats had a clear, positive message vs. 11% that carried a negative tone. That is roughly double the percentage of positive stories that we found in the media generally. Just under a third (30%) of the front page stories examined were neutral.

For the top tier Democrats, the positive tilt was even more the case than for Democrats in general. Obama&#8217;s front page coverage in the sample was 70% positive and 9% negative and Clinton&#8217;s was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative.

Republican candidates, in contrast, were more likely to receive clearly negative stories in print than elsewhere: 40% negative vs. 26% positive and 34% neutral.

<snip>

Network evening news closely reflected the overall media when it came to dividing time between Democrat and Republican candidates (49% vs. 28%). While all three produced more stories about Democrats than Republicans, at the NBC Evening News the gap was smaller&#8212;just an 11 percentage point difference (41% Democrats vs. 30% Republicans) vs. roughly a 30 percentage point gap at ABC and CBS.

The tone of coverage in the 30-minute evening newscasts was much more positive toward the Democrats than Republicans. And again, among the major candidates, Obama got the best of it and McCain the worst. Of the 11 stories primarily about McCain that ran on the nightly news in the first five months of the year, not a single one carried a clearly positive tone. Six of them were clearly negative and five were neutral.

<snip>

What distinguished cable news more in the first five months of the year was the tone of the coverage. The positive-negative breakdown of Democrats followed roughly the same trend as the media overall (34% positive vs. 25% negative). But the tone of Republican coverage was quite different. On cable TV, stories about Republican candidates were nearly as likely to be positive as to be negative (29% positive vs. 30% negative).

But those numbers only reflect the three major cable news channels taken together. When you look at the coverage of each one, there are significant differences in how the candidates were treated. CNN gave decidedly more negative coverage to Republican candidates; Fox was more negative towards Democrats&#8211;and more positive towards Republicans; MSNBC gave decidedly positive coverage towards both.

<snip>

CNN: The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates&#8212;by a margin of three-to-one.

<snip>

Fox News: The programming studied on Fox News offered a somewhat more positive picture of Republicans and more negative one of Democrats compared with other media outlets. Fox News stories about a Republican candidate were most likely to be neutral (47%), with the remainder more positive than negative (32% vs. 21% negative). The bulk of that positive coverage went to Giuliani (44% positive), while McCain still suffered from unflattering coverage (20% positive vs. 35% negative).

Democratic candidates, the picture was more negative. Again, neutral stories had a slight edge (39%), followed by 37% negative and 24% positive. And, in marked contrast from the rest of the media, coverage of Obama was twice as negative as positive: 32% negative vs. 16% positive and 52% neutral.

But any sense here that the news channel was uniformly positive about Republicans or negative about Democrats is not manifest in the data.

<snip>

MSNBC: On MSNBC, a positive tone pervaded coverage of candidates from both parties. Nearly half (47%) of the stories about Democratic candidates were positive, vs. 19% negative and 34% neutral. Coverage of Republican candidates was not quite as rosy but still more stories were positive (38%) than neutral (33%) or negative (30%).

<snip>

It may surprise no one that the 2008 presidential election was a major feature of talk radio, both conservative and liberal. From January through May, the race for the White House has accounted for 13% of the total airtime studied, making it the second-biggest story after the debate over Iraq policy (17%). Overall, conservative talk radio was far more interested in the early campaign than was liberal talk radio. Conservative talk radio aired 106 segments on the candidates, while liberal talk radio mustered a bare 29 segments.

Most of that airtime was spent dwelling on the negative. Conservatives spent the bulk of their time criticizing Democratic candidates and liberal hosts vented about Republican contenders.
The candidate who received the most attention by far on talk radio was Senator Clinton. She got two or three times the attention of any other contender regardless of party. Most of the Clinton segments were carried on conservative talk radio, which covered her negatively in 86% of 50 segments. The most discussed Republican candidate on liberal talk radio, Mayor Giuliani, was treated negatively in every segment about him, but there were only eight.

<snip>

NPR&#8212;Morning Edition &#8211; more time for the Democrats

Like the media overall, the first 30 minutes NPR&#8217;s Morning Edition produced more stories about Democratic candidates than Republicans (41% vs. 24%). What was different was how little negative coverage Democrats received, especially compared with all other media. Stories about a Democratic candidate were more seven times more positive than negative: 41% positive vs. 6% negative. The majority of coverage, 53% of stories, was neutral.

<snip>
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,651
50,912
136
Really? Here's a few highlights from the PEJ-Shorenstein study.

Yes, now go read their conclusions; nowhere in them is the mention of bias. This is why you should actually read studies before saying what they indicate.

In fact, we've been over this before. The time period they were analyzing was one in which the Republican Party was facing a historically hated president, an economy in the middle of a meltdown of historic proportions, poor presidential candidates, and inspirational and widely liked opponents. What WOULD have been evidence of media bias is if in spite of all these challenges both parties received equally positive media coverage. That wouldn't make any sense.

You also failed to address the fact that by your own standard the media is conservatively biased in this election. I'm totally shocked that you didn't reach that conclusion. lol.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Yes, now go read their conclusions; nowhere in them is the mention of bias. This is why you should actually read studies before saying what they indicate.

In fact, we've been over this before. The time period they were analyzing was one in which the Republican Party was facing a historically hated president, an economy in the middle of a meltdown of historic proportions, poor presidential candidates, and inspirational and widely liked opponents. What WOULD have been evidence of media bias is if in spite of all these challenges both parties received equally positive media coverage. That wouldn't make any sense.

You also failed to address the fact that by your own standard the media is conservatively biased in this election. I'm totally shocked that you didn't reach that conclusion. lol.
We've had this conversation many times. Read it and weep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Scholarly_treatment_in_the_United_States_and_United_Kingdom
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
LOL @ people who do not understand why the media runs so many negative stories on Trump. The guy is a GOLD MINE. They'd kill to have a candidate like him in every election cycle.
Um, according to eskimospy there are twice as many negative stories about the Hildabeast . . .

lol, so now you're dismissing the all research from the most prestigious research institution in the US, perhaps the world. Hokay. Please enlighten us with what sources you would consider acceptable.

So why didn't Trump get better coverage than Cruz?
The Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center is "the most prestigious research institution in the US, perhaps the world"? Do you perhaps have a foreign object lodged in your brain that needs immediate attention?

This is a very selective "study". First, it separates out the coverage devoted to issues only. Hint: When one is very publicly being investigated by the FBI, there WILL be coverage. Second, it attempts to make a positive out of Trump's mere 12% of issue coverage, attempting to ignore that the 88% of non-issue coverage was overwhelmingly hit pieces. While recently Europe was suffering yet another Islamic killing spree, CNN was busy covering the burning issue of . . . women who don't like Trump.

As far as "proving" that the mainstream media is not in bed with Hillary, this study is weak even for you.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,651
50,912
136

Yes we have, did you even bother to read your own link? Most of the literature mentioned isn't even about aggregate liberal or conservative bias in the media, and the ones that are seem split about 50/50 on liberal bias vs conservative/corporatist bias.

Would you like me to link you to the meta analysis that I've previously posted on this topic again?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,651
50,912
136
Um, according to eskimospy there are twice as many negative stories about the Hildabeast . . .


The Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center is "the most prestigious research institution in the US, perhaps the world"? Do you perhaps have a foreign object lodged in your brain that needs immediate attention?

Uhmm, Harvard University is, yes. Are you feeling ok?

This is a very selective "study". First, it separates out the coverage devoted to issues only. Hint: When one is very publicly being investigated by the FBI, there WILL be coverage. Second, it attempts to make a positive out of Trump's mere 12% of issue coverage, attempting to ignore that the 88% of non-issue coverage was overwhelmingly hit pieces. While recently Europe was suffering yet another Islamic killing spree, CNN was busy covering the burning issue of . . . women who don't like Trump.

As far as "proving" that the mainstream media is not in bed with Hillary, this study is weak even for you.

It does not do that, and thank you for confirming you didn't bother to read the study you are critiquing as had you read it in even the most cursory way you would have noticed that it in no way ignored non-issue coverage. I have no idea why you feel that you can critique studies you have not read, but it's pretty funny when you try.

Maybe you wouldn't think that all social science research was actively harmful to humanity if you actually bothered to read any social science research.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Yes we have, did you even bother to read your own link? Most of the literature mentioned isn't even about aggregate liberal or conservative bias in the media, and the ones that are seem split about 50/50 on liberal bias vs conservative/corporatist bias.

Would you like me to link you to the meta analysis that I've previously posted on this topic again?
I'm not going to take the time to cite, copy, paste, and highlight for you only to watch you twist the conclusions and then argue minutia as you always do.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |