By the way, the only reason the press didn’t go negative on Obama a lot sooner is because they hated Hillary more.
Nope. If you go to the source, you can see that they are not talking about all media coverage, they are talking about:
Emphasis added.
A distinction without a difference.
Big difference.
Saying it doesn’t make it true. What is the definition of an “on air evaluation,” and how is that distinguished from “coverage?”
Because “coverage” encompasses all the media exposure a person gets while “evaluations” are only a small part of that. Most “coverage” is neutral.
I can’t seem to find the distinction between coverage and evaluations in the source you quoted. They do give three examples of what they considered positive vs. negative coverage:
I could be wrong here, but those examples sure look like regular “coverage” to me, and not just commentary, as you suggest.
I understand that’s what you’re trying to claim, but what is your basis for making this claim. Can you point me to something that clearly defines the difference?
Wouldn’t “on-air” mean radio?
It means both television and radio.
What does this mean?
It means what it says, that the coverage is mostly negative for both, but it’s worse for Obama than for McCain. It simply isn’t true that the media is favoring Obama.
How about when he and HRC were going at it?
Seemed pretty favorable back then. Now he gets asked some “tougher” questions and people are crying in their beers that he isn’t being coddled anymore. Perhaps in my case I just got disgusted how much fawning he recieved during the primaries. Everyone was pumping him up when HRC was still in the race because alot of media outlests were in no mood to have HRC as the Democratic nominee. Nowadays he has to be under some tougher scrutiny because he has a good shot at being president. By doing so he has the opurtunity to speak about whatever issue and sounds really smart.
He gets more overall coverage than McCain does, though. And the vast majority of that coverage is neutral, not negative. Does that mean the media is favoring him? Maybe, maybe not. He has recently been doing a lot more than McCain, so there’s more to cover.
Getting back to the OP, here’s a breakdown of voting percentages as they relate to final electoral college results. On average, a lead of 5% in the final popular vote come Election Day (which is where Obama’s been hovering for weeks now) results in a margin of victory of 200 in the Electoral College.
No, the majority of that coverage is negative, as I already showed. You never demonstrated that the study recognizes any definitional difference between “coverage” and “on air evaluation.”
Hillary started as the fronrunner and presumptive Democratic candidate so they attacked her more, both because they though she would be the candidate and because she’s Hillary. They were only using Obama to bring down the Clintons.
The frequency misses the fact the stories are negative . Long debates about whether he is black enough or too elitist is hardly helpful coverage.
My son and wife are involved it voter registration . They also work for the Obama campaign. They have a group calling the Detroit/Dearborn area. The amount of responses they get from people saying" I aint voting for no Nigger’ is daunting. I asked them to keep track but the bosses said not to. I wanted to get a percentage. but too many of the young people calling get upset and do not want to deal with it.
Those are Democratic towns…you sure they are calling Detroit and Dearborn?