|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 01/04/2008 : 09:50:25
|
I was eagerly listening to the radio on my way to work this morning to hear the results of the Iowa primary. As I am not a fan of Clinton, and am probably going to vote for Edwards, I was thrilled to hear that Obama got first, then Edwards, with Clinton third.
I was not thrilled with how NPR announced the news. Maybe I'm blinded by my own bias, but they started out by saying: "It was a good day for insurgents." Referring to Obama and Huckabee as insurgents!!! Currently that word has a pretty loaded connotation, and given all the comments about Barack's name sounding like Osama and his middle name being Hussein, I found this disconcerting. Next, they make a huge deal of Clinton, so much so that I assumed she won second place. This segment ended with the radio playing her supporters chanting "Hil-ar-y, Hil-ar-y!" John Edward's second place was mentioned third, briefly, and in a ho-hum sort of way.
I hope they both crush her in the elections to come.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2008 : 10:14:35 [Permalink]
|
Sadly, Olberman also seemed a bit irritated by the Obama win. I didn't watch any CNN or FAUX stuff, so not sure about them.
I don't think many of the pundits have a real clue this time around. Hillary will probably do better in states like Pennsylvania, but her nomination is far from assured.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2008 : 10:45:03 [Permalink]
|
Link to the story on NPR.
Obama and Huckabee are pretty much the only topics of discussion until the two-minute mark, when the story switches to Hillary for 45 seconds, and then Edwards for 40 seconds. All other Democratic candidates were dealt with in a single sentence, and the only two names given in those seven seconds were of those Dems who dropped out of the race. At 3:33 the story covers the Republicans exclusively. Huckabee until 4:50 or so (one minute, 17 seconds), then Romney gets about 27 seconds all to himself, then a wrap-up and talk of New Hampshire until about 5:31, and then McCain got most of the remaining 31 seconds of air time.
Obama's win and Hillary's loss were news, because the opposite was expected. Nobody expected Edwards to win, so when he didn't, it's not news. 40 seconds seems a surprisingly large amount of time to give to him, even in a ho-hum sorta way.
Perhaps most surprising of all was how they opened this first segment of Morning Edition:By now you know the basics. ...as if everyone should have already received this news from somwhere else. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2008 : 19:01:09 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Obama's win and Hillary's loss were news, because the opposite was expected. Nobody expected Edwards to win, so when he didn't, it's not news. 40 seconds seems a surprisingly large amount of time to give to him, even in a ho-hum sorta way. |
Hillary and Obama have both been front-runners in polls.
| For the last two months, polls in Iowa have shown a tight three-way Democratic contest, with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards fighting for the lead. |
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/02/opinion/pollpositions/main3666416.shtml
Estimated Democratic Results (from Christopher C. Hull, former majority staff director of the Iowa Senate)
Obama 35 percent
Clinton 25 percent |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122702055.html
What was not expected was that Edwards would beat Clinton. He did. That is news. According to actual votes, not just polls, he's now the #2 candidate. But let's see if he's treated like it by the media. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2008 : 20:05:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
What was not expected was that Edwards would beat Clinton. He did. That is news. According to actual votes, not just polls, he's now the #2 candidate. But let's see if he's treated like it by the media. |
Well, let's be clear-- Iowa's caucus system isn't exactly the same as voting in the way it is meant in the other primaries. Given his place nation-wide, it seems rather gratuitous to call Edwards the "#2 candidate" in the race. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2008 : 14:25:14 [Permalink]
|
| I'll add this in Marf's favor-- Liz Edwards has a legitimate gripe that her husband's finish in Iowa is probably not getting the attention it deserves! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2008 : 22:19:26 [Permalink]
|
Hey, the impression I got from listening to NPR leading up to Iowa was Clinton at #1, Obama a not-so-close second and Edwards third. Given such a context, Edwards still losing wasn't such a big deal.
In other words, there's been plenty of time to bring up NPR's anti-Edwards bias. And their anti-Gulliani bias. And their anti-Gravel, anti-Kucinich, anti-Richardson, anti-Thompson, anti-Paul and anti-Hunter biases (none of whom were mentioned by name even once in that piece).
Whether "the Media" is biased against Edwards is a different question. NPR might be, but they certainly don't set the tone for other outlets. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2008 : 23:59:17 [Permalink]
|
Well, I noticed that the general "story" was Obama beats Clinton. This is a misleading bit of reporting at best. It was the same everywhere I went for coverage and info on the Iowa caucus. The fact that Edwards also beat Clinton was not mentioned until late in the stories and wasn't given much attention.
A more accurate report would have said, "Clinton loses to Obama and Edwards in Iowa."
Its certainly not ok to proclaim "media bias", I'll agree with you on that. But widespread misleading coverage smacks of at least some media outlets trying to add to the story by leaving some pertinent details for the section below the fold.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 08:56:27 [Permalink]
|
NPR: Clinton Comes Back to Win New Hampshire Primary:Clinton until 2:50
Obama from 2:50 to 3:41
Edwards from 3:41 to 3:52
Clinton and Obama from 3:52 to 3:59
McCain from 3:59 to 5:00
Romney from 5:00 to 5:40
McCain and Romney from 5:40 to 5:57
Huckabee from 5:57 to 7:17 So, splitting the shared time:Clinton - 173.5 seconds
Huckabee - 80.0
McCain - 69.5
Obama - 62.5
Romney - 48.5
Edwards - 11.0 Nobody else even got mentioned. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 09:57:19 [Permalink]
|
Dave, time alone isn't the only measure of bias. What is included in that time is much more important.
I don't think most media outlets are biased in political favor of certain candidates. They are biased by their own self interest. They put out the candidates with the most popularity and name recognition because the audience is more likely to pay attention. Nothing forces them to be fair, so they aren't. I wish we had a system more like France where all the viable candidates get equal media time. There would still be room for bias, given what I said above, but at least everyone will have heard of people like Gravel, Kucinich, and Paul. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 10:34:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave, time alone isn't the only measure of bias. What is included in that time is much more important. |
I know that. It's harder to quantify the more-important stuff, though, and so much more difficult to measure bias.
But in this last case, they gave Edwards the least attention, and basically called him the losingest loser in all of Loserville. Everyone else's bits were about how happy and upbeat they are. Thus, this latest piece only adds to your "NPR is biased against Edwards" thesis. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 14:27:47 [Permalink]
|
Apropos of nothing much:
With Obama winning in Iowa, and Hillary pulling off a squeaker in New Hampshire, a two-person race seems to be the growing perception.
Rightly or wrongly, Hillary Clinton is widely perceived as the only Democrat the GOP could beat in the November general elections. I'm expecting the Anyone-But-Hillary people to begin swinging to Obama as the only viable alternative. (I don't think there are nearly as many Anyone-But-Obama voters, but those few should swing to Clinton.)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2008 : 21:08:45 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner wrote: | Hillary Clinton is widely perceived as the only Democrat the GOP could beat in the November general elections. |
Will (my husband) is part of a liberal minority that things she is unelectable for a general race. He keeps telling me about opinion polls that suggest that many Democrats wouldn't vote for her. If she wins the primary, boy do I hope he's wrong! I just want someone I can be mildly pleased to vote for rather than feeling like I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. Probably too much to ask. *sigh* |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 07:59:54 [Permalink]
|
| As a non-American with only a minor clue about American politics... I'd like to know why so many dislike Clinton. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 10:01:58 [Permalink]
|
| I can't answer the "why," but last year sometime, Pat Robertson predicted that a Clinton nomination would so galvanize the Republicans that they'd basically drop all their internal squabbles to elect someone - almost anyone - else. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 10:33:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
As a non-American with only a minor clue about American politics... I'd like to know why so many dislike Clinton.
|
Right-wing mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh have been attacking Hillary since the days when she was First Lady. Back then she was aggressively pushing her socialized medicine program, which for conservatives was a sure sign that she was a communist lesbian out to destroy America. For many conservatives, Hillary is the embodiment of everything they despise about liberals. So while the state of New York was sufficiently Democratic that she was able to win a Senate seat, the notion that she can overcome a 15+ year smear campaign to win swing votes in a general election strains credibility. Hillary is radioactive in Red states. She is a polarizing figure, not a uniter. Fielding her as the Democratic candidate for the Presidency is probably the only shot Republicans have at winning, which was undoubtedly why Carl Rove is hoping Hillary wins the nod--she's very beatable.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
NPR's bias when announcing Iowa primary results
