Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Media Issues
 NPR's bias when announcing Iowa primary results
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  09:50:25  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  10:45:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  19:01:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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

Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2008 :  20:05:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 01/05/2008 :  14:25:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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!
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 01/05/2008 :  22:19:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 01/05/2008 :  23:59:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2008 :  08:56:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2008 :  09:57:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2008 :  10:34:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2008 :  14:27:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2008 :  21:08:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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

Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 01/10/2008 :  07:59:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 01/10/2008 :  10:01:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 01/10/2008 :  10:33:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.45 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000