That’s also true, but most of the headlines are either straight news (“Anchorage paper backs Obama”) or paraphrases of what the candidates said, so there’s not much evaluation here of whether the facts support a difference in coverage.
I agree with you, but he said both “I believe I’m going to win it” and “We’re going to win it.” Calling the latter a guarantee is perfectly fair and does not misrepresent anything he said, although it’s still a dumb subject to ask about and write a story about.
Since all you gave was the headlines, we can’t determine how much variety there is or what it might mean about any individual source. If your point was to measure bias in “the media,” grabbing one day’s headlines from Yahoo alone isn’t much of a sample.
They mean the pretty much same thing. My opinion is the same: it’s hard to draw meaningful conclusions from one headline, and there’s no factual answer to your question. You may think “tars” sounds less fair than “slams,” but it’s only an opinion and not proof of anything.
If you agree with me, then you agree that “I guarantee I’m going to win” expresses more confidence that “I am going to win” Right?
I think most reasonable people would agree that “tar” carries a more negative connotation than “slam” – as far as the critic goes. If you disagree, then so be it.
And as I said before, bias is almost never clear from one incident.
Based on my general sense, I would guess that in the minds of most journalists, the Democratic position is somehow more correct than the Republican position.
In any event, it’s true that I did not look up the underlying speeches, but I chose points which are almost certainly debatable, one way or another. It’s extremely likely that reasonable people can disagree over the extent to which Obama’s criticisms of McCain are justified, and vice-versa. Same thing for the degree to which McCain’s policies would be similar to those of Bush.
“I guarantee it” is supposed to sound stronger but they really mean the same thing. Both are guarantees of victory, so what’s the point of this quibble? The lede is inaccurate, but the headline isn’t.
Again, so what? What’s it prove that one headline says “tar” and another says “slam?” They’re also used differently, which is part of the reason there is no meaningful comparison: “slam” is a summary of the fact that Obama made a number of critiques while in Colorado - that is, the headline doesn’t evaluate the truth or falsity of ANY attacks because none are specificed; “tars” is used in specific reference to the ‘socialist’ attack.
And “I believe it” really means the same thing too, no?
I don’t know how to make my point any clearer. Actually, that’s not true. From now on, whenever you or Obama make any statement, can I feel free to insert the word “guarantee” when paraphrasing your (or his) comments? After all, if it really means the same thing, then nobody ought to object.
And again, just about every individual incident can be explained away. (Although I missed your explanation about “attempt”)
When you say “I believe” you’re acknowledging it’s your own opinion. “We’re going to win” is still McCain’s opinion but is more definitive. There are varying degrees of certainty involved, is that your point? If you say “I guarantee we’re going to win” instead of “we’re going to win,” it sounds more definitive, but both statements are predictions of the same outcome.
Please try. Maybe you should ditch this point about the word “guarantee” and return to your main one.
I guarantee you’re bobbing and weaving, but I guarantee you are not making yourself clear.
I guarantee you’re right, so I guarantee you should find a pattern rather than harping on one instance. I guarantee that at a bare minimum, it won’t be any less persuasive.
I watched Meet the Press and it certainly appeared to me that McCain was confident and assured Brokaw that he would witness a McCain victory. He may have been whistling past the graveyard, but he’s a good actor, and if you’d asked me what he meant I’d certainly have said he guaranteed a victory. He kept citing some Zogby poll that put him only a couple of points down.
Actually, you are the one who is being unclear. Does that mean yes or no?
Again, does that mean yes or no?
Actually I mentioned a couple issues. One of which you ignored, and one of which you are confusing. I do agree that a “pattern” would be necessary to demonstrate bias.
Still, 3 instances of apparent anti-McCain bias out of 50 articles is a start.
The headline is a fair representation of what McCain said, and I’m puzzled that his supporters would think that mention of a guarantee paints him in a bad light.
One prominent example of an underdog guaranteeing victory and then coming through was Joe Namath (and the N.Y. Jets) against Baltimore in the Super Bowl. His remarks helped give him legendary status in football.
Since when is showing confidence (however justified or unjustified it may be) a negative trait?
As media bias claims go, this one is on very shaky ground.
“I will win” and “I guarantee I will win” mean the same thing. The addition of “guarantee” is intended to make the second version sound stronger, but they’re predictions of the same outcome. I already said this.
Yes: “tars” vs. “slams,” which I dealt with, “guarantee,” which I dealt with, and “links,” where it would be obvious to anyone that they are describing Obama’s claim, not validating it.
Your “3 instances” are worthless, for reasons I already explained.
I’m not entirely sure how this shows media bias either, but I disagree that the headline represents what McCain said fairly. He said he guarantees it’s going to be a close race, and that he believes he’s going to win. The guarantee applies to the margin. When it comes to his actually winning, he hedges, avoiding a guarantee and instead going for the less confident “I believe.”
I find this odd, as well. Regardless of the semantic haggling over what words mean have what meanings at what strength, how does the headline show an anti-McCain bias in any way?
What McCain supporter is going to change their view to oppose him based on that headline?
What independent or undecided voter is going to reject McCain based on that headline?
Even if the headline was really and truly utterly different from the text, it simply has no negative connotations (for anyone not out looking to be offended).
Ah, I see. You’re a televised debate moderator who believes complex issues should be answered in yes or no form because your audience is made up of idiots who hate context and are scared of nuance.
I answered the questions. If I didn’t answer them simply enough for your tastes, that’s not my problem.
I assumed it was a rhetorical question, or if not rhetorical, just stupid.
No, I’m just trying to understand your position and make my point clear.
To you, “I guarantee I will win” means the same thing as “I will win” except when it does not. I honestly don’t understand the distinction you have tried to draw.
Nevertheless, I think it’s pretty clear that you would object to having the word “guarantee” inserted when you are paraphrased. Because it expresses more confidence than you actually intended.
I suspect you don’t want to admit this because then you will have to admit that McCain was not fairly paraphrased.
No it was not a rhetorical question. By your reasoning (to the extent I can understand it), “I believe I will win” may very well mean the same thing as “I will win” (except when it doesn’t).
That’s because I’ve never said anything that even remotely resembles your paraphrase.
I’ve said repeatedly that he was fairly paraphrased. If all you can say is that I’m refusing to admit he wasn’t, I guess you don’t have an argument.
Then I agree that you’ve completely failed to understand what I’m saying.
“I guarantee I will win” means the same thing as “I will win.” You have argued that “guarantee” expresses more confidence. I agree. But both are fairly described as guarantees of victory. Tom is also correct that describing it as a guarantee wouldn’t put McCain in a bad light even if it was false.
What you’ve said doesn’t make any sense. See below:
These two statements are contradictory. If statement X expresses more confidence than statement Y, then the two statements don’t mean the same thing. The meaning may be close, but it’s not the same.
And I think that deep down, you are aware of this contradiction. Otherwise, you would not object to having people insert the word “guarantee” when they are paraphrasing you.
Actually, you are the one who is being unclear. Does that mean yes or no?