Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-02-2012, 08:30 AM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,053
Media Coverage Disparity

The obvious:
QuoteQuote:
The Pew Research Center's Project on Excellence in Journalism finds that coverage of Obama turned sharply negative after the first presidential debate. Overall coverage of his campaign has been slightly more positive than that of Romney since the party conventions.

The study finds that 19 percent of stories about Obama have been positive, 30 percent have been negative and 51 percent have been mixed. Fifteen percent of stories about Romney have been positive, 38 percent have been negative and 47 percent have been mixed.

Romney's worst coverage came in September, after his response to the deaths of U.S. diplomats in Libya and his "47 percent" comments.
Which candidate got the most negative press coverage: Obama or Romney? | NOLA.com

The media was most enraged by Obama's style while their attacks on Romney seem to have been to a degree misplaced since the truth has been coming out that the Libya tragedy was totally preventable had someone not ignored the ambassador's pleas for help.

It seems that the liberal media's problem with Super PACs is just that they don't want competition in their electioneering activities.

11-02-2012, 10:17 AM   #2
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
#1

QuoteQuote:
Correction: Williams pointed out that requests for extra security were focused on the embassy in Tripoli, not Benghazi, and State Department officials believe that even if the requests had been granted, they would likely not have changed what happened in Benghazi because the consulate would have been ill-equipped to respond to such a large-scale assault (again echoing a previous report by Media Matters):
"Deliberate Misinformation": Fox Host Juan Williams Debunks His Own Network On Libya Attack | Blog | Media Matters for America

almost everything is preventable in "hindsight"..............



It is being charged that requests for extra security in Benghazi were denied by the administration.

The suggestion is that the attack would have been stopped, and the ambassador still alive, if the requests had been granted.

But at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this month, Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and head of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, testified that the request was for added security in Tripoli, the capital of Libya, and not Benghazi.

The added manpower would have been based 400 miles away from the violence.

In addition, U.S. security officials report more guards could not have repelled heavy weapons used by the attackers.
11-03-2012, 05:39 AM   #3
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,064
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
The media was most enraged by Obama's style while their attacks on Romney seem to have been to a degree misplaced since the truth has been coming out that the Libya tragedy was totally preventable had someone not ignored the ambassador's pleas for help.

It seems that the liberal media's problem with Super PACs is just that they don't want competition in their electioneering activities.
Yes, shame on the mainstream media for not picking up and spreading the fabrications put out there by the right wing propagandists. Shame on them for not lowering their standards of journalism to that of Faux news. How very dare they.
11-03-2012, 08:23 AM   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20,882
The issue at Benghazi is that the embassy should either have been closed or had increased security months before the final attack. It was clearly in a "hot spot" area. As to the actual day of the attack that killed the ambassador, it sounds to me as though it was managed as well as it could have been, considering the resources present for security in the country of Libya. But those were not adequate, considering the prior history at that embassy.

11-03-2012, 04:43 PM   #5
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,829
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The issue at Benghazi is that the embassy should either have been closed or had increased security months before the final attack. It was clearly in a "hot spot" area. As to the actual day of the attack that killed the ambassador, it sounds to me as though it was managed as well as it could have been, considering the resources present for security in the country of Libya. But those were not adequate, considering the prior history at that embassy.
There is no embassy in Benghazi, and there never was. It is in Tripoli. There was no consulate in Benghazi, either. It is and was "mission," whose "mission" is not fully known, except that it appears in the vicinity of a CIA facility directed at anti-terrorism. We are just speculating on what resources should or could have been placed there.
11-03-2012, 06:24 PM   #6
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,668
Mainstream media in america = business.

The largest cheerleaders for going to war (sure it wasn't an undeclared war) with Iraq both times was?? Take a guess...

NBC; owned by General Electric - one of the largest military contractors in the world. Almost all of the media outlets in america are quite biased to say the least
11-03-2012, 10:01 PM   #7
Senior Member
graphicgr8s's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 229
QuoteOriginally posted by Medium FormatPro Quote
Mainstream media in america = business.

The largest cheerleaders for going to war (sure it wasn't an undeclared war) with Iraq both times was?? Take a guess...

NBC; owned by General Electric - one of the largest military contractors in the world. Almost all of the media outlets in america are quite biased to say the least
General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt is the Obama's Job Czar assigned to create jobs for China.
11-04-2012, 02:28 AM   #8
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt is the Obama's Job Czar assigned to create jobs for China.
Let me guess Immelt is some Marxist/socialist hand pick by Obama.. Face it .. it bush would have picked him you would be all rah rah for him..........




QuoteQuote:
Past Patriotism: A Coalition To Train Veterans for Manufacturing Jobs
by Jeffrey Immelt Oct 15, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
To fill advanced manufacturing jobs, a new coalition of employers will train veterans, and help them to translate their wartime skills to civilian use, writes GE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/15/past-patriotism-a-coalition...ring-jobs.html

http://gulfbusiness.com/2012/10/exclusive-ges-jeff-immelt-says-economy-movin.../#.UJY9eobF2Dk


Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-04-2012 at 03:05 AM.
11-04-2012, 01:03 PM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,474
If you take MSNBC and Fox out of the equation the media coverage has been pretty equal.

MSNBC, FOX News: Which cable channel is more partisan? Pew Report suggests its MSNBC

The study ... reveals the degree to which the two cable channels that have built themselves around ideological programming, MSNBC and Fox, stand out from other mainstream media outlets. And MSNBC stands out the most. On that channel, 71% of the segments studied about Romney were negative in nature, compared with just 3% that were positive-a ratio of roughly 23-to-1. On Fox, 46% of the segments about Obama were negative, compared with 6% that were positive-a ratio of about 8-to-1 negative. These made them unusual among channels or outlets that identified themselves as news organizations.
11-04-2012, 03:16 PM   #10
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,064
I don't like MSNBC as a 'news source' but it's really political commentary that makes no apology about being left-leaning (no pretence of 'fair and balanced' which suggests a neutral stance). But I think the disparity between Fox's negative coverage of Obama and MSNBC's negative coverage of Romney can be explained by this:

Stories about Romney are ALWAYS connected to the election because he's not newsworthy for any other reason! On the other hand, some stories about Obama will not be connected to the election - he is involved in other 'newsworthy' stuff that go with leading the country.

OTOH it may just be that negative stories about Romney are just easier for MSNBC to come by... i.e. they don't have to go to the trouble of making them up...
11-04-2012, 04:31 PM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 6,474
QuoteOriginally posted by ihasa Quote
I don't like MSNBC as a 'news source' but it's really political commentary that makes no apology about being left-leaning (no pretence of 'fair and balanced' which suggests a neutral stance). But I think the disparity between Fox's negative coverage of Obama and MSNBC's negative coverage of Romney can be explained by this:

Stories about Romney are ALWAYS connected to the election because he's not newsworthy for any other reason! On the other hand, some stories about Obama will not be connected to the election - he is involved in other 'newsworthy' stuff that go with leading the country.

OTOH it may just be that negative stories about Romney are just easier for MSNBC to come by... i.e. they don't have to go to the trouble of making them up...
I think the negativity is a result of catering to their viewers. They are businesses who produce a product that they must sell to their viewers. People tune in because they know they will hear what they want to hear and their "opinions" will be re-enforced by their selection. The rating are much more interesting than the "news" that they provide.

The average person does not like to be challenged in their beliefs or opinions. People tune in to have their pre-established beliefs and opinions re-enforced. If people started moving away MSNBC or Fox News they would change their bias to reflect that of their target audience. They are both products of the society that they serve.
11-04-2012, 06:26 PM   #12
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,668
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
If you take MSNBC and Fox out of the equation the media coverage has been pretty equal.

MSNBC, FOX News: Which cable channel is more partisan? Pew Report suggests its MSNBC

The study ... reveals the degree to which the two cable channels that have built themselves around ideological programming, MSNBC and Fox, stand out from other mainstream media outlets. And MSNBC stands out the most. On that channel, 71% of the segments studied about Romney were negative in nature, compared with just 3% that were positive-a ratio of roughly 23-to-1. On Fox, 46% of the segments about Obama were negative, compared with 6% that were positive-a ratio of about 8-to-1 negative. These made them unusual among channels or outlets that identified themselves as news organizations.
Someone please find me any two nationwide media outlets that are not severely biased. The same can be said for the the top thirty (regional/city) media markets.

But to reference the nationwide outlets. How about CNN - they're out because of their bias
11-05-2012, 02:53 AM   #13
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
People tune in to have their pre-established beliefs and opinions re-enforced. If people started moving away MSNBC or Fox News they would change their bias to reflect that of their target audience. They are both products of the society that they serve.
In terms of actual news reporting, it's not acceptable to 'accept' a bias in one channel or another and just say 'well the viewers will go to the channel that reflects their views'. There should be a body that holds news outlets to account over innaccuracies and bias, and penalties for peddling distortion.
11-05-2012, 02:57 AM   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
ivanvernon's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Medina, OH
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,354
Agreed. Good assessment.
11-05-2012, 02:59 AM - 1 Like   #15
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
ivanvernon's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Medina, OH
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,354
Perhaps the attacks could not have been repelled. At least it might have been nice to have tried. Then we would know for sure. Let's not gloss over the administration's neglect of security aspects in this event.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
coverage, libya, media, mixed, obama, percent, romney, stories
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ron Paul Media Blackout mikemike General Talk 95 09-04-2011 07:33 AM
Modern Media /Modern Minds seacapt General Talk 24 09-23-2010 03:55 PM
Acurate translation of the 645D part anyone. SCGushue Pentax News and Rumors 69 12-30-2009 07:36 PM
Media coverage of returning War Dead Damn Brit General Talk 79 04-08-2009 09:27 PM
Any pros shooting 35mm? filmamigo Photographic Technique 91 01-25-2008 09:02 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top