Obama and Reverend Wright?

[yorick73]

@Marley23

Yes, and we had a protracted discussion of how extremely incorrect that was because many damaging stories have received extensive coverage.

That’s funny…I see it the exact opposite way.

@Marley23

Right, ‘sprinting’- although you said a couple of posts ago that Obama can only go incrementally. My question is that if the entire party is moving in this direction (as you’ve said a couple of times), why do Obama’s relationships with Wright or Jones matter?

The terms are relative. Your debate technique has become nothing more than to split hairs over wording. Or just ignoring entire posts. Truly sad.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@yorick73

You are aware that the health care reform law is more than just the individual mandate…right? As a separate issue the individual mandate is a bad idea no matter who favors it. Are you trying to prove something by stating that republicans came up with the idea? Most republicans are, ultimately, heading down the same path as the democrats…just at a slower rate.

I suppose they must have started further along the path, or something, since the Heritage Foundation came up with the underlying principles of Obamacare 15 years before the Democrats adopted them.

[Marley23]

@yorick73

What can Obama run on really?

The economy is better than it was when he took office, Bin Laden is dead, the Iraq engagement is ending and there are deadlines in place on Afghanistan, the health care reform bill, financial regulation, etc. And yes, he’ll be arguing that the Republicans are wrong on key issues.

@yorick73

That’s funny…I see it the exact opposite way.

Yes, I had noticed. The facts don’t agree with you either.

Your debate technique has become nothing more than to split hairs over wording.

I’m asking questions and not getting answers. Why do Obama’s associations with Wright and Jones matter if everybody is a statist and the Democrats are socialist anyway?

Or just ignoring entire posts.

What do you feel I’m ignoring exactly?

[yorick73]

@Marley23

I’m asking questions and not getting answers. Why do Obama’s associations with Wright and Jones matter if everybody is a statist and the Democrats are socialist anyway?

Nope. You gave up debating about a page back and decided to try to find errors in wording as opposed to ideas. That may actually be a debate tactic but it is certainly not one I respect.

[Marley23]

Well, that was kind of ironic.

@Marley23

What do you feel I’m ignoring exactly?

[yorick73]

@tomndebb

I don’t need to be in denial. Your claims are based on loose associations and twisting things out of context.

I don’t thing the associations are all that loose. Also, what exactly has been taken out of context. I asked earlier if you can provide the correct context for me.

@tomndebb

You are going to extraordinary lengths to portray a rather middle of the road capitalist who is well inside the boundaries of typical Democratic Party lines for policies regarding social, political, or military programs as some sort of wild-eyed revolutionary because he happened to know a few people, at work or in church, who were farther to the Left than your comfort zone can tolerate, even though his behavior demonstrates that whatever influence they might potentially have had on him seems to have failed to stick.

I’ve expressed my opinion on a man who has a lot of radicals in his past. You see nothing wrong with that so we agree to disagree.

@tomndebb

Certainly, a person “can” be judged by the company one keeps–however it is a pretty poor method of judgment when all the other evidence points in a different direction.

The original point I was making is that the press should have done all of this before Obama was elected. I think someone running for the highest office in the land, right or left, should have the press digging into all the radicals in their past.

[Marley23]

@yorick73

The original point I was making is that the press should have done all of this before Obama was elected. I think someone running for the highest office in the land, right or left, should have the press digging into all the radicals in their past.

All of this was widely reported before Obama was elected. The only exception to that was Van Jones, and it would not have made much sense to look into his background before his appointment.

[yorick73]

@Marley23

Well, that was kind of ironic.

It’s kind of silly to spend a page asking the question instead of going back to see for yourself. I don’t care that you ignore entire posts. I only felt compelled to mention it since you complained that I ignored one of your attempts to prompt a response to words that you put in my mouth. Another clever debating tactic.

[Pashnish_Ewing]

@yorick73

Let’s face it…Obama has to be the least vetted presidential candidate in recent memory. The press dragged their collective feet on any unflattering stories and any damaging information was waved away as “not newsworthy”.

I get the feeling if you were in charge of the GOP 2012 campaign you would run the exact same campaign McCain did four years ago. Seriously - if no one cared about this stuff in 2008, why do you think anyone will care about it in 2012?

[I_Know_Nothing]

Heilemann and Halperin in their book Game Change claimed Obama mostly stopped going to church because they were raising two daughters, just Christmas and Easter type churchgoers. When Wright’s “god damn America” comments came out Obama couldn’t just say he wasn’t going to church anymore because his faith was too big a part of his campaign.

Obama was a community leader/organizer so it doesn’t surprise me that he became so deeply involved with the biggest church around early in his career. A lot of radical crap comes out of severely impoverished areas like the South side of Chicago, all the more reason to have him there.

I always saw Wright in the same light as Robertson or Falwell. They all saw 9-11 as God punishing the US: W for mistreatment of minorities, R/F for liberal ungodly policies.

Of course I don’t see the Christian left having much influence in the Democratic party while the Republican party infested with that crap from the Christian right.

[Marley23]

@yorick73

If you can’t be bothered to read the link I provided then quit bitching about it being an overtly Republican group. Do you turn your nose up to every media matters link? What about HuffPo? I usually expect that reaction when someone cannot refute data or has run out of substance.

This is the only comment I can find that I actually didn’t respond to (as opposed to giving a response you disagreed with). My point is that your cite is hopelessly biased and I’m not going to waste my time with it. You argued the media was biased toward Obama and cited a group that says it is dedicated to finding liberal bias in the media. What would you expect them to find- that the media was biased toward McCain or treated them both fairly? If someone were arguing the media is biased toward conservatives I wouldn’t accept a cite from a liberal group whose mission said they were dedicated to finding conservative bias in the media.

[yorick73]

@Marley23

This is the only comment I can find that I actually didn’t respond to (as opposed to giving a response you disagreed with). My point is that your cite is hopelessly biased and I’m not going to waste my time with it. You argued the media was biased toward Obama and cited a group that says it is dedicated to finding liberal bias in the media. What would you expect them to find- that the media was biased toward McCain or treated them both fairly? If someone were arguing the media is biased toward conservatives I wouldn’t accept a cite from a liberal group whose mission said they were dedicated to finding conservative bias in the media.

I would expect you to read the study before dismissing it out of hand. Here are some less biased links that discuss the overall media bias in Obama’s favor for you:

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/winning_media_campaign

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C5D8C5D4-18FE-70B2-A8220008CD2D5EA4

[Marley23]

@yorick73

I would expect you to read the study before dismissing it out of hand.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I’ll grant you that this is very hard subject to quantify and that I’m not sure what the best measurement is- if there is one. But saying ‘the media spent X hours on positive stories on Obama’ and ‘we ran Y articles about McCain that were negative’ just doesn’t strike me as a smart or meaningful assessment of anything. I don’t think that’s how people experience the news and it doesn’t take into account anything IN the news. If the number of time and positive and negative stories on the candidates were equal, would that prove the coverage is fair, or would it show a lot of fluff was being aired or published in the interest of a superficial appearance of fairness? And how do you take into account that not all issues are equally important to voters? As PEJ says:

Much of the increased attention for McCain derived from actions by the senator himself, actions that, in the end, generated mostly negative assessments.
[…] [coverage] turned sharply negative with McCain’s reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bolder steps to try and reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened. Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obama’s character did hurt Obama’s media coverage, but McCain’s was even more negative.

Does that prove the press was biased, or does it say that McCain screwed up royally on the economy (which was the biggest issue during the campaign) and got roasted for it, and then did some ridiculous things like trying to suspend the campaign, which cast doubt on his basic judgment?

[yorick73]

@Marley23

Garbage in, garbage out.

Read: “I will not look at it because it disagrees with my worldview.”

@Marley23

I’ll grant you that this is very hard subject to quantify and that I’m not sure what the best measurement is- if there is one. But saying ‘the media spent X hours on positive stories on Obama’ and ‘we ran Y articles about McCain that were negative’ just doesn’t strike me as a smart or meaningful assessment of anything. I don’t think that’s how people experience the news and it doesn’t take into account anything IN the news. If the number of time and positive and negative stories on the candidates were equal, would that prove the coverage is fair, or would it show a lot of fluff was being aired or published in the interest of a superficial appearance of fairness? And how do you take into account that not all issues are equally important to voters? As PEJ says:

What we do know is that the more something is repeated the more people become aware of it. If the nightly news does a 10 second story on Wright’s rantings or a one-time 30 second piece on Obama’s connection to Ayers then they can say they reported the story. The fact is that when the news organizations want you to know about a story they start beating the drums and do not let up for days or weeks on end. Morning shows. Evening news. Front page of the paper. It becomes evident that the media are more interested in your seeing certain stories.

The MRC study I linked to shows this for the Wright story. Since you refuse to read it I’ll quote some of it:

@Right Wing site Marley23 is afraid to open

The broadcast network evening news shows gave virtually no coverage to Wright soundbites in March. Snippets of Wright’s sermons drew only 72 seconds of evening news coverage in all of March, or an average of 24 seconds per network, less than one commercial.

snip

The networks completely ignored soundbites of Wright’s conspiracy theory about the U.S. government inventing AIDS to kill blacks, and mostly ignored his comments about the September 11 terrorist attacks being “America’s chickens coming home to roost.” None of the network morning or evening shows found one opportunity to air Wright’s 2003 sermon accusing the federal government of hiding the truth about their “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.” His attack on America’s alleged record of terrorism and violence was ignored by all three evening shows, as well as by CBS’s The Early Show.

The broadcast networks gave clips of Obama’s “race speech” on March 18 more than twice as much air time in a few hours than they gave all of the Wright bites aired in the month of March. The evening news shows on March 18 carried almost six minutes (348 seconds) of highlights from the Obama speech, or roughly five times more than all the Wright bites in March. The morning shows carried roughly nine and a half minutes (572 seconds) of sound from the speech. The three morning shows gave almost twice as much time to the Obama speech clips as they devoted to Wright soundbites in March. Combined, Obama’s one speech drew about 15 minutes of clips, while Wright’s years of sermons drew about six minutes.

[Shodan]

@Marley23

But saying ‘the media spent X hours on positive stories on Obama’ and ‘we ran Y articles about McCain that were negative’ just doesn’t strike me as a smart or meaningful assessment of anything.

This is one of the silliest pieces of hand-waving I have seen you produce.

Does that prove the press was biased, or does it say that McCain screwed up royally on the economy (which was the biggest issue during the campaign) and got roasted for it, and then did some ridiculous things like trying to suspend the campaign, which cast doubt on his basic judgment?

How do you account for the fact that every Republican Presidential candidate for the last thirty years has also been reported with the same bias? No matter what the economy is doing, no matter what happens - election after election. Is that just a coincidence?

Regards,
Shodan

[Marley23]

@yorick73

Read: “I will not look at it because it disagrees with my worldview.”

I’ve read plenty of cites that I don’t agree with. I didn’t bother reading yours (although the fact that I quoted from their website should have been a hint that I did check it out).

What we do know is that the more something is repeated the more people become aware of it.

Which is why lots of people are aware of Jeremiah Wright: he was covered extensively on all kinds of national media in March and April 2008.

It becomes evident that the media are more interested in your seeing certain stories.

That’s not actually how it works.

@yorick73

The MRC study I linked to shows this for the Wright story.

Snippets of Wright’s sermons drew only 72 seconds of evening news coverage in all of March, or an average of 24 seconds per network, less than one commercial.

I get it: Wright said a lot of things. There’s only room to repeat so many of them and footage is going to be used sparingly.

The broadcast networks gave clips of Obama’s “race speech” on March 18 more than twice as much air time in a few hours than they gave all of the Wright bites aired in the month of March.

I know the Republicans forgot this from time to time, but Obama was the one running for president, not Wright. Wright was only relevant because of his connection to Obama and what his statements might mean for the campaign.

[Marley23]

@Shodan

This is one of the silliest pieces of hand-waving I have seen you produce.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but not surprised. News coverage is complex and not well summed up by a single number. Unless that number says something bad about your opponent, of course.

How do you account for the fact that every Republican Presidential candidate for the last thirty years has also been reported with the same bias?

You’re assuming the conclusion. And some more from PEJ:

One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? The data do not provide conclusive answers. They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions. Obama’s coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before. Obama’s numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain’s numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.

[Shodan]

@Marley23

I’m sorry you feel that way, but not surprised. News coverage is complex and not well summed up by a single number. Unless that number says something bad about your opponent, of course.

What single number did you think you were talking about? Media bias is pretty obvious for those without blinders (cite, cite).

[QUOTE=Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, July 10, 2004.]
The media, I think, wants Kerry to win.
[/QUOTE]

“Of course it is…These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”

“I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican,” said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study’s lead author. “But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.”

If you are just going to deny that we can draw conclusions from the evidence, then you might as well not debate.

Regards,
Shodan

[yorick73]

@Marley23

I’ve read plenty of cites that I don’t agree with. I didn’t bother reading yours (although the fact that I quoted from their website should have been a hint that I did check it out).

You checked out what? You got all the way to the word conservative and put the brakes on. If you have read many cites you don’t agree with then why couldn’t you be bothered to read mine?

@Marley23

Which is why lots of people are aware of Jeremiah Wright: he was covered extensively on all kinds of national media in March and April 2008.

As I explained they sat on that story for quite some time. When they did give the story some time they omitted the most inflammatory parts.

@Marley23

That’s not actually how it works.

Of course that is how it works. Please stop pretending that you were born yesterday.

@Marley23

I get it: Wright said a lot of things. There’s only room to repeat so many of them and footage is going to be used sparingly.

Wow…you have a gift for twisting logic.

@Marley23

I know the Republicans forgot this from time to time, but Obama was the one running for president, not Wright. Wright was only relevant because of his connection to Obama and what his statements might mean for the campaign.

Rev. Wright was the story. How can you give more time to Obama’s explanation than to the actual event that led to the explanation? I wonder why the media chose not to use Obama’s video sparingly?

[Marley23]

@yorick73

You checked out what?

Their website. I quoted from their mission statement, which ought to be a hint to you that I read it. I didn’t see the word “conservative” and leave. I read the mission statement of the cite you linked to and figured I already knew what they were going to say because it was obviously a biased citation.

When they did give the story some time they omitted the most inflammatory parts.

I don’t think they omitted the most inflammatory parts. Showing a guy yelling “God damn America” over and over (and then quoting him and spending a long time commenting on it) is hardly softening the blow.

Of course that is how it works.

No, it isn’t. ABC and Fox and newspapers don’t make their reporting and editorial decisions based on what they want to tell people. The decisions are based on what they think is interesting and what people will want to read or watch.

Rev. Wright was the story. How can you give more time to Obama’s explanation than to the actual event that led to the explanation?

Who has received more airtime lately: the women accusing Herman Cain of sexual harassment, or Cain? Once the controversy around Wright has been established it’s not necessary to air and re-air the same thing over and over again.

I wonder why the media chose not to use Obama’s video sparingly?

Like I said, he was running for president and Wright wasn’t. Airing Obama’s speech isn’t biasing things in his favor anyway: the speech was a response to a controversy that reflect poorly on Obama, and keeping that controversy in the news didn’t help him. The best the speech could do for him is defuse the controversy. And again - the story broke March 14, the speech was March 18, and Wright remained in the news for weeks after that.

As we continue to discuss the media’s love affair with Obama, let’s not forget that crazy conspiracy theories about his birthplace and citizenship were a controversy throughout the campaign, and the more news coverage and debunking they received, the more people believed them. That’s how uncritically people believe what they see on the news.