The headline in question is inaccurate. McCain did not guarantee victory and the distinction between ‘guaranteeing victory’ and saying ‘we are going to win’ is important. It is lazy headline writing that probably stemmed from poor and/or sloppy comprehension of the article. Then again, maybe it was just rushed. Still, it’s the type of poor writing/copy editing I see far too often in the media–all parts of the media–MainStream or otherwise.
I don’t think bias had anything to do with it.
In April 1945, would the headlines about the Allies and the Third Reich be fair and balanced? Should the media have made great attempts to show that both sides still had a legitimate viewpoint and an equal opportunity for victory? No — the headlines would have shown that one side was in deep trouble. That would not have been bias, that would have been reality. Counting the number of headlines For and Against is a poor way of identifying bias.
As for “guarantee,” I think they had room to more fairly portray McCain’s remarks in the headline. Nevertheless, “McCain Guarantees Victory” seems like a very positive pro-McCain spin to me, so I can’t see how it’s an example of anti-McCain bias. If anything, I perceive it as bias in his favor.
That’s not what I’m counting. For example if there are 10 articles saying “McCain behind in polls,” that’s not bias. He really is behind in the polls and I have no problem with the MSM reporting it.
What I’m counting is situations where McCain is painted in a more negative light than Obama (and Obama is painted in a more positive light) for what is almost certainly similar behavior.
Turning to your World War II example, let’s suppose we saw the following headlines describing the same or similar behavior:
“Germans impose starvation diet on many American prisoners of war”
“Misbehaving German POW’s may be sent to bed without dinner”
That would be unfair and I would object to it. Notwithstanding the evil of the NAZIs, the news media should be fair.
If you can’t see the problem with the headline by now, you probably will never understand.
I certainly don’t understand why you think it’s an example of anti-McCain bias.
“Desperate Sweaty McCain Guarantees Victory, Implores Republicans Not To Give Up” would be anti-McCain.
The word choice between “tars” and “slams” isn’t a great one to me either.
You don’t understand why it makes McCain look bad. I gather that.
Does anybody understand it? The Flying Dutchman gave an explanation, but it was absurd. Why do you think it makes McCain look bad?
As noted above, I concur with Flying Dutchman’s explanation.
Although you may feel it’s ridiculous, I note that you apparently object to receiving the same treatment McCain received. It would seem that the argument is ridiculous when applied to McCain, but not so ridiculous when applied to Marley23.
No. I was very clear. I don’t understand why you think it makes McCain look bad.
I gather that. I take it you have no objection if I paraphrase any predictions or statements by you or Obama and insert words like “guarantee” “assure” and “promise”?
First of all, that is complete bullshit, and not what I said at all.
You have made your point that you think McCain was unfairly paraphrased.
You have NOT made your point that the paraphrasing makes McCain look bad.
Ok. Both your explanations are absurd.
I think McCain was unfairly paraphrased. Therefore it proves I am a flying nuclear pickle.
I have no idea what you are talking about. You made a statement. I said “I gather that” and then asked you a simple question.
:shrug: I believe that the paraphrasing makes McCain look bad. You don’t understand or accept my position. Fine.
But, like Marley23, you apparently object to letting me treat you or Obama the same way McCain was treated.
What the hell does one have to do with the other? I understand that you think McCain was badly paraphrased. I get it.
But I don’t see how you leap from that to “the headline makes McCain look bad.” In my mind, it doesn’t make him look bad. It makes him look better.
You may not have noticed, but I added “guarantee” to every sentence in my next post to show you just how much difference it really makes. I get what you’re saying about it not being an accurate representation of what McCain said, although I happen to disagree. The statement that it harms McCain or is negative to him in some way is what is really ridiculous. Particularly since your assertion depends on voters being complete morons: “I was going to vote for him, but he said he’ll win, but I know he won’t, so I won’t vote for him?” How many numbskulls of this stripe are out there, do you think?
That’s not a real comparison since you had the benefit of being able to choose your words.
If you really believed that inserting “guarantee” doesn’t change a person’s meaning, you should have no objection to letting other people make the insertion at their discretion when paraphrasing you.
I have no idea if it cost him any votes and am not trying to argue that it did.
I gather that. And yet for some reason, you object to (apparently) receiving the same treatment McCain did.
So you acknowledge there is no evidence it casts him in a bad light?
It definitely does for me.
No I do not acknowledge that.