Where I Rant About the ‘Liberal Media’, Imbalance, and Unrelenting Negativity
October 21, 2011 No Comment
enlarge Earlier this week Pew Research published the results of a study of how media — broadcast, print and blogs — have covered the 2012 candidates for President. One candidate in particular had remarkable numbers, particularly when it came to how much of the coverage was negative, versus positive. Who was it? Bachmann? Perry? Cain? If you guessed any of those three, you guessed wrong. One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all, the study found: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-1. Those assessments of the president have also been substantially more negative than positive every one of the 23 weeks studied. And in no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the president positive in tone. These are some of the findings of new work by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism that combines PEJ’s ongoing weekly content analysis with computer algorithmic technology developed by Crimson Hexagon. In combination, the two research methods assess coverage across more than 11,500 news media outlets each day. A separate analysis also tracks the level of discussion and tone across hundreds of thousands of blogs. The study covers the 23 weeks from May 2, when candidates began to announce, to October 9, one week ago—that first phase of what might be called The Media Primary. The blogosphere, it turns out, is proving a much rougher environment than the news media for candidates, including contenders associated with the Tea Party movement. But one candidate has emerged as the winner of the blog primary so far—Texas Congressman Ron Paul. But wait, there’s more. Guess who keeps getting happy, happy glowing coverage? Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin continued to display a gift for fascinating the media during these past five months. Though she never entered the race, finally announcing on October 5 that she would not run, Palin seemed to generate significant coverage whenever she hinted she might get into the contest. That was enough to make her the fourth-most-covered Republican figure in news coverage, and the most-discussed candidate in blogs. And despite her complaints about what she calls the “lamestream media,” Palin enjoyed coverage that was considerably more positive than negative—by a factor of almost 3-2. Bloggers, meanwhile, were much more disapproving. As if to prove the truth of this study, The Hill ran with an amazing headline today: Poll: Half of Americans believe Obama doesn’t deserve reelection Hmmm. Let’s see. If half of Americans believe he doesn’t deserve re-election, then that means the other half does, right? Which means that headline could easily have been flipped around to read “Half of Americans believe Obama deserves re-election.” And if that headline could have been flipped and wasn’t, one might ask why? Here’s another way they could have worded it: “Americans evenly split on whether Obama deserves re-election”. That would have been neutral, at least. That headline came from The Hill, which seems to have a permanent right-wing tilt. But here’s one of The Politico’s headlines: Obama Gets Low Marks With Jews . Uh-oh, that’s a core constituency, right? Oops! The headline is a bit misleading, since the question was specific to how the conflict between Israel and Palestine is being handled, not his overall rating. Bet you’d never have guessed that from the headline though, which I’m sure was intended. I’m still looking for that liberal media. Let’s go to the traditional media outlets and see what’s there. CNN.com was either neutral or just obsessed with last night’s Republican debate. Not much there and what was, was neutral. MSNBC.com next. Nope, no there, there. All about Republicans and debates. Nothing really about the President’s bus tour, which wrapped up in Virginia today, or anything else, for that matter. On to Fox News, where I will supply screen shots of below-the-fold headlines: enlarge That would be a slam article on Biden, featuring President Obama in the image. And then there’s this: enlarge Wow. There ya go. Lots and lots of negative, although I expect nothing less from Fox News. So for this night, anyway, the mainstream outlets are either ignoring the President altogether or slamming him, Fox News style. In the past, I have been the target of a lot of criticism for taking people on the “liberal” side of things to task for what I consider to be criticism that ignores reality. Take, for example, the public option debate. I hear this over and over, how the public option could have been reality if only the President had taken the bully pulpit and pounded Congress, kind of like he is now. Only, he’s pounding now and getting absolutely nothing in return for it. Yet I will still hear about how the President has some kind of magical power to convince Congress to roll over just because he said so. It has taken a toll, all that negativity, just as I said it would at the time. If you think otherwise, go back and look at that chart again, which includes blogs . Not right-wing blogs, but blogs, overall. 2012 is right around the corner. If you think nothing is at stake, I urge you to reconsider. The Supreme Court, the modest gains with the health care act (like covering pre-existing conditions and kids up to age 27 on parents’ policies, for example), what little financial industry regulation we were able to get — gone. Of course, we can count on women being sent back to the eighteenth century while people sleep in the street and children are allowed to work with no protections, unions are decertified and barred from existing, liberal votes go uncast and uncounted because of voter suppression and employees’ protections are rolled back. I’m not exaggerating. If you’ve watched what’s happening in the states you know I’m not exaggerating. It’s real, and we can’t count on media — blog, traditional media, print media or social media — to balance what they say and write about this President. If we’re not going to get his back, I would suggest it is time to breathe deep and get ready for what President Romney or Perry will serve up. In the past when I say this, people laugh. Quit laughing. Because if you’re not seeing what’s at stake and how skewed the reporting is that gets out to people less engaged and less interested than anyone reading this blog post right now, then you should take a closer look at what is right in front of us. Whatever your complaint with this President might be, I assure you it will look and sound nothing like the sound and fury of the United States going to hell down a fast slide under the guidance of a right-wing crazy type. There’s a reason Rick Perry wins elections. He tears down his opponents. He’ll do it this time too. First Romney, then Obama. And if no one is willing to line up behind Obama, I’m guessing we’ll all be Texas. Update: Andrew Sullivan, who I have a love-hate relationship with, echoes this theme with expansion : At some point, he needs to shuck off the restraint, and tell the actual story of the last three years – against the fantastic and self-serving lies and delusions we keep hearing in Republican debates and Beltway chatter. If he does it with panache, he won’t need a jumpsuit onto an aircraft carrier. And many of his missions may even be accomplished.
Continue reading …Where I Rant About the ‘Liberal Media’, Imbalance, and Unrelenting Negativity
October 21, 2011 No Commentenlarge Earlier this week Pew Research published the results of a study of how media — broadcast, print and blogs — have covered the 2012 candidates for President. One candidate in particular had remarkable numbers, particularly when it came to how much of the coverage was negative, versus positive. Who was it? Bachmann? Perry? Cain? If you guessed any of those three, you guessed wrong. One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all, the study found: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-1. Those assessments of the president have also been substantially more negative than positive every one of the 23 weeks studied. And in no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the president positive in tone. These are some of the findings of new work by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism that combines PEJ’s ongoing weekly content analysis with computer algorithmic technology developed by Crimson Hexagon. In combination, the two research methods assess coverage across more than 11,500 news media outlets each day. A separate analysis also tracks the level of discussion and tone across hundreds of thousands of blogs. The study covers the 23 weeks from May 2, when candidates began to announce, to October 9, one week ago—that first phase of what might be called The Media Primary. The blogosphere, it turns out, is proving a much rougher environment than the news media for candidates, including contenders associated with the Tea Party movement. But one candidate has emerged as the winner of the blog primary so far—Texas Congressman Ron Paul. But wait, there’s more. Guess who keeps getting happy, happy glowing coverage? Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin continued to display a gift for fascinating the media during these past five months. Though she never entered the race, finally announcing on October 5 that she would not run, Palin seemed to generate significant coverage whenever she hinted she might get into the contest. That was enough to make her the fourth-most-covered Republican figure in news coverage, and the most-discussed candidate in blogs. And despite her complaints about what she calls the “lamestream media,” Palin enjoyed coverage that was considerably more positive than negative—by a factor of almost 3-2. Bloggers, meanwhile, were much more disapproving. As if to prove the truth of this study, The Hill ran with an amazing headline today: Poll: Half of Americans believe Obama doesn’t deserve reelection Hmmm. Let’s see. If half of Americans believe he doesn’t deserve re-election, then that means the other half does, right? Which means that headline could easily have been flipped around to read “Half of Americans believe Obama deserves re-election.” And if that headline could have been flipped and wasn’t, one might ask why? Here’s another way they could have worded it: “Americans evenly split on whether Obama deserves re-election”. That would have been neutral, at least. That headline came from The Hill, which seems to have a permanent right-wing tilt. But here’s one of The Politico’s headlines: Obama Gets Low Marks With Jews . Uh-oh, that’s a core constituency, right? Oops! The headline is a bit misleading, since the question was specific to how the conflict between Israel and Palestine is being handled, not his overall rating. Bet you’d never have guessed that from the headline though, which I’m sure was intended. I’m still looking for that liberal media. Let’s go to the traditional media outlets and see what’s there. CNN.com was either neutral or just obsessed with last night’s Republican debate. Not much there and what was, was neutral. MSNBC.com next. Nope, no there, there. All about Republicans and debates. Nothing really about the President’s bus tour, which wrapped up in Virginia today, or anything else, for that matter. On to Fox News, where I will supply screen shots of below-the-fold headlines: enlarge That would be a slam article on Biden, featuring President Obama in the image. And then there’s this: enlarge Wow. There ya go. Lots and lots of negative, although I expect nothing less from Fox News. So for this night, anyway, the mainstream outlets are either ignoring the President altogether or slamming him, Fox News style. In the past, I have been the target of a lot of criticism for taking people on the “liberal” side of things to task for what I consider to be criticism that ignores reality. Take, for example, the public option debate. I hear this over and over, how the public option could have been reality if only the President had taken the bully pulpit and pounded Congress, kind of like he is now. Only, he’s pounding now and getting absolutely nothing in return for it. Yet I will still hear about how the President has some kind of magical power to convince Congress to roll over just because he said so. It has taken a toll, all that negativity, just as I said it would at the time. If you think otherwise, go back and look at that chart again, which includes blogs . Not right-wing blogs, but blogs, overall. 2012 is right around the corner. If you think nothing is at stake, I urge you to reconsider. The Supreme Court, the modest gains with the health care act (like covering pre-existing conditions and kids up to age 27 on parents’ policies, for example), what little financial industry regulation we were able to get — gone. Of course, we can count on women being sent back to the eighteenth century while people sleep in the street and children are allowed to work with no protections, unions are decertified and barred from existing, liberal votes go uncast and uncounted because of voter suppression and employees’ protections are rolled back. I’m not exaggerating. If you’ve watched what’s happening in the states you know I’m not exaggerating. It’s real, and we can’t count on media — blog, traditional media, print media or social media — to balance what they say and write about this President. If we’re not going to get his back, I would suggest it is time to breathe deep and get ready for what President Romney or Perry will serve up. In the past when I say this, people laugh. Quit laughing. Because if you’re not seeing what’s at stake and how skewed the reporting is that gets out to people less engaged and less interested than anyone reading this blog post right now, then you should take a closer look at what is right in front of us. Whatever your complaint with this President might be, I assure you it will look and sound nothing like the sound and fury of the United States going to hell down a fast slide under the guidance of a right-wing crazy type. There’s a reason Rick Perry wins elections. He tears down his opponents. He’ll do it this time too. First Romney, then Obama. And if no one is willing to line up behind Obama, I’m guessing we’ll all be Texas. Update: Andrew Sullivan, who I have a love-hate relationship with, echoes this theme with expansion : At some point, he needs to shuck off the restraint, and tell the actual story of the last three years – against the fantastic and self-serving lies and delusions we keep hearing in Republican debates and Beltway chatter. If he does it with panache, he won’t need a jumpsuit onto an aircraft carrier. And many of his missions may even be accomplished.
Continue reading …Where I Rant About the ‘Liberal Media’, Imbalance, and Unrelenting Negativity
October 21, 2011 No Commentenlarge Earlier this week Pew Research published the results of a study of how media — broadcast, print and blogs — have covered the 2012 candidates for President. One candidate in particular had remarkable numbers, particularly when it came to how much of the coverage was negative, versus positive. Who was it? Bachmann? Perry? Cain? If you guessed any of those three, you guessed wrong. One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all, the study found: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-1. Those assessments of the president have also been substantially more negative than positive every one of the 23 weeks studied. And in no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the president positive in tone. These are some of the findings of new work by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism that combines PEJ’s ongoing weekly content analysis with computer algorithmic technology developed by Crimson Hexagon. In combination, the two research methods assess coverage across more than 11,500 news media outlets each day. A separate analysis also tracks the level of discussion and tone across hundreds of thousands of blogs. The study covers the 23 weeks from May 2, when candidates began to announce, to October 9, one week ago—that first phase of what might be called The Media Primary. The blogosphere, it turns out, is proving a much rougher environment than the news media for candidates, including contenders associated with the Tea Party movement. But one candidate has emerged as the winner of the blog primary so far—Texas Congressman Ron Paul. But wait, there’s more. Guess who keeps getting happy, happy glowing coverage? Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin continued to display a gift for fascinating the media during these past five months. Though she never entered the race, finally announcing on October 5 that she would not run, Palin seemed to generate significant coverage whenever she hinted she might get into the contest. That was enough to make her the fourth-most-covered Republican figure in news coverage, and the most-discussed candidate in blogs. And despite her complaints about what she calls the “lamestream media,” Palin enjoyed coverage that was considerably more positive than negative—by a factor of almost 3-2. Bloggers, meanwhile, were much more disapproving. As if to prove the truth of this study, The Hill ran with an amazing headline today: Poll: Half of Americans believe Obama doesn’t deserve reelection Hmmm. Let’s see. If half of Americans believe he doesn’t deserve re-election, then that means the other half does, right? Which means that headline could easily have been flipped around to read “Half of Americans believe Obama deserves re-election.” And if that headline could have been flipped and wasn’t, one might ask why? Here’s another way they could have worded it: “Americans evenly split on whether Obama deserves re-election”. That would have been neutral, at least. That headline came from The Hill, which seems to have a permanent right-wing tilt. But here’s one of The Politico’s headlines: Obama Gets Low Marks With Jews . Uh-oh, that’s a core constituency, right? Oops! The headline is a bit misleading, since the question was specific to how the conflict between Israel and Palestine is being handled, not his overall rating. Bet you’d never have guessed that from the headline though, which I’m sure was intended. I’m still looking for that liberal media. Let’s go to the traditional media outlets and see what’s there. CNN.com was either neutral or just obsessed with last night’s Republican debate. Not much there and what was, was neutral. MSNBC.com next. Nope, no there, there. All about Republicans and debates. Nothing really about the President’s bus tour, which wrapped up in Virginia today, or anything else, for that matter. On to Fox News, where I will supply screen shots of below-the-fold headlines: enlarge That would be a slam article on Biden, featuring President Obama in the image. And then there’s this: enlarge Wow. There ya go. Lots and lots of negative, although I expect nothing less from Fox News. So for this night, anyway, the mainstream outlets are either ignoring the President altogether or slamming him, Fox News style. In the past, I have been the target of a lot of criticism for taking people on the “liberal” side of things to task for what I consider to be criticism that ignores reality. Take, for example, the public option debate. I hear this over and over, how the public option could have been reality if only the President had taken the bully pulpit and pounded Congress, kind of like he is now. Only, he’s pounding now and getting absolutely nothing in return for it. Yet I will still hear about how the President has some kind of magical power to convince Congress to roll over just because he said so. It has taken a toll, all that negativity, just as I said it would at the time. If you think otherwise, go back and look at that chart again, which includes blogs . Not right-wing blogs, but blogs, overall. 2012 is right around the corner. If you think nothing is at stake, I urge you to reconsider. The Supreme Court, the modest gains with the health care act (like covering pre-existing conditions and kids up to age 27 on parents’ policies, for example), what little financial industry regulation we were able to get — gone. Of course, we can count on women being sent back to the eighteenth century while people sleep in the street and children are allowed to work with no protections, unions are decertified and barred from existing, liberal votes go uncast and uncounted because of voter suppression and employees’ protections are rolled back. I’m not exaggerating. If you’ve watched what’s happening in the states you know I’m not exaggerating. It’s real, and we can’t count on media — blog, traditional media, print media or social media — to balance what they say and write about this President. If we’re not going to get his back, I would suggest it is time to breathe deep and get ready for what President Romney or Perry will serve up. In the past when I say this, people laugh. Quit laughing. Because if you’re not seeing what’s at stake and how skewed the reporting is that gets out to people less engaged and less interested than anyone reading this blog post right now, then you should take a closer look at what is right in front of us. Whatever your complaint with this President might be, I assure you it will look and sound nothing like the sound and fury of the United States going to hell down a fast slide under the guidance of a right-wing crazy type. There’s a reason Rick Perry wins elections. He tears down his opponents. He’ll do it this time too. First Romney, then Obama. And if no one is willing to line up behind Obama, I’m guessing we’ll all be Texas. Update: Andrew Sullivan, who I have a love-hate relationship with, echoes this theme with expansion : At some point, he needs to shuck off the restraint, and tell the actual story of the last three years – against the fantastic and self-serving lies and delusions we keep hearing in Republican debates and Beltway chatter. If he does it with panache, he won’t need a jumpsuit onto an aircraft carrier. And many of his missions may even be accomplished.
Continue reading …Anderson Cooper Apologizes for Repeating Lie that 47% of Americans Don’t Pay Taxes During GOP Debate
October 21, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media I came close to posting this bit the night of the debate and slamming Anderson Cooper for repeating the right-wing lie that 47% of Americans don’t pay any taxes at all, conflating income taxes with the average levels of taxation that all Americans pay for plenty of other things, and Cooper beat me to it by offering this apology for his misstatement during the CNN GOP debate this week which he moderated. Here’s Cooper from the end of his “Keeping Them Honest” segment : COOPER: And finally, “Keeping Them Honest,” the moderator, me. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Congressman Bachmann, you also said at the last debate that everyone should pay something. Does that mean that you would raise taxes on the 47 percent of Americans who currently don’t pay taxes? (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: I said it during the debate and the discussion afterwards, I was flat out wrong of course. What I knew and meant to say was 40 percent of Americans do not pay federal income tax. They do of course pay plenty of other state, local and federal taxes including federal payroll taxes, gasoline taxes and on and on. I made a mistake last night and I apologize. I’ve got a lot of issues with CNN doing their best to be Fox-lite, but was glad to see Cooper do the right thing here and offer the correction.
Continue reading …Where I Rant About the ‘Liberal Media’, Imbalance, and Unrelenting Negativity
October 21, 2011 No Commentenlarge Earlier this week Pew Research published the results of a study of how media — broadcast, print and blogs — have covered the 2012 candidates for President. One candidate in particular had remarkable numbers, particularly when it came to how much of the coverage was negative, versus positive. Who was it? Bachmann? Perry? Cain? If you guessed any of those three, you guessed wrong. One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all, the study found: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-1. Those assessments of the president have also been substantially more negative than positive every one of the 23 weeks studied. And in no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the president positive in tone. These are some of the findings of new work by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism that combines PEJ’s ongoing weekly content analysis with computer algorithmic technology developed by Crimson Hexagon. In combination, the two research methods assess coverage across more than 11,500 news media outlets each day. A separate analysis also tracks the level of discussion and tone across hundreds of thousands of blogs. The study covers the 23 weeks from May 2, when candidates began to announce, to October 9, one week ago—that first phase of what might be called The Media Primary. The blogosphere, it turns out, is proving a much rougher environment than the news media for candidates, including contenders associated with the Tea Party movement. But one candidate has emerged as the winner of the blog primary so far—Texas Congressman Ron Paul. But wait, there’s more. Guess who keeps getting happy, happy glowing coverage? Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin continued to display a gift for fascinating the media during these past five months. Though she never entered the race, finally announcing on October 5 that she would not run, Palin seemed to generate significant coverage whenever she hinted she might get into the contest. That was enough to make her the fourth-most-covered Republican figure in news coverage, and the most-discussed candidate in blogs. And despite her complaints about what she calls the “lamestream media,” Palin enjoyed coverage that was considerably more positive than negative—by a factor of almost 3-2. Bloggers, meanwhile, were much more disapproving. As if to prove the truth of this study, The Hill ran with an amazing headline today: Poll: Half of Americans believe Obama doesn’t deserve reelection Hmmm. Let’s see. If half of Americans believe he doesn’t deserve re-election, then that means the other half does, right? Which means that headline could easily have been flipped around to read “Half of Americans believe Obama deserves re-election.” And if that headline could have been flipped and wasn’t, one might ask why? Here’s another way they could have worded it: “Americans evenly split on whether Obama deserves re-election”. That would have been neutral, at least. That headline came from The Hill, which seems to have a permanent right-wing tilt. But here’s one of The Politico’s headlines: Obama Gets Low Marks With Jews . Uh-oh, that’s a core constituency, right? Oops! The headline is a bit misleading, since the question was specific to how the conflict between Israel and Palestine is being handled, not his overall rating. Bet you’d never have guessed that from the headline though, which I’m sure was intended. I’m still looking for that liberal media. Let’s go to the traditional media outlets and see what’s there. CNN.com was either neutral or just obsessed with last night’s Republican debate. Not much there and what was, was neutral. MSNBC.com next. Nope, no there, there. All about Republicans and debates. Nothing really about the President’s bus tour, which wrapped up in Virginia today, or anything else, for that matter. On to Fox News, where I will supply screen shots of below-the-fold headlines: enlarge That would be a slam article on Biden, featuring President Obama in the image. And then there’s this: enlarge Wow. There ya go. Lots and lots of negative, although I expect nothing less from Fox News. So for this night, anyway, the mainstream outlets are either ignoring the President altogether or slamming him, Fox News style. In the past, I have been the target of a lot of criticism for taking people on the “liberal” side of things to task for what I consider to be criticism that ignores reality. Take, for example, the public option debate. I hear this over and over, how the public option could have been reality if only the President had taken the bully pulpit and pounded Congress, kind of like he is now. Only, he’s pounding now and getting absolutely nothing in return for it. Yet I will still hear about how the President has some kind of magical power to convince Congress to roll over just because he said so. It has taken a toll, all that negativity, just as I said it would at the time. If you think otherwise, go back and look at that chart again, which includes blogs . Not right-wing blogs, but blogs, overall. 2012 is right around the corner. If you think nothing is at stake, I urge you to reconsider. The Supreme Court, the modest gains with the health care act (like covering pre-existing conditions and kids up to age 27 on parents’ policies, for example), what little financial industry regulation we were able to get — gone. Of course, we can count on women being sent back to the eighteenth century while people sleep in the street and children are allowed to work with no protections, unions are decertified and barred from existing, liberal votes go uncast and uncounted because of voter suppression and employees’ protections are rolled back. I’m not exaggerating. If you’ve watched what’s happening in the states you know I’m not exaggerating. It’s real, and we can’t count on media — blog, traditional media, print media or social media — to balance what they say and write about this President. If we’re not going to get his back, I would suggest it is time to breathe deep and get ready for what President Romney or Perry will serve up. In the past when I say this, people laugh. Quit laughing. Because if you’re not seeing what’s at stake and how skewed the reporting is that gets out to people less engaged and less interested than anyone reading this blog post right now, then you should take a closer look at what is right in front of us. Whatever your complaint with this President might be, I assure you it will look and sound nothing like the sound and fury of the United States going to hell down a fast slide under the guidance of a right-wing crazy type. There’s a reason Rick Perry wins elections. He tears down his opponents. He’ll do it this time too. First Romney, then Obama. And if no one is willing to line up behind Obama, I’m guessing we’ll all be Texas. Update: Andrew Sullivan, who I have a love-hate relationship with, echoes this theme with expansion : At some point, he needs to shuck off the restraint, and tell the actual story of the last three years – against the fantastic and self-serving lies and delusions we keep hearing in Republican debates and Beltway chatter. If he does it with panache, he won’t need a jumpsuit onto an aircraft carrier. And many of his missions may even be accomplished.
Continue reading …Where I Rant About the ‘Liberal Media’, Imbalance, and Unrelenting Negativity
October 21, 2011 No Comment
enlarge Earlier this week Pew Research published the results of a study of how media — broadcast, print and blogs — have covered the 2012 candidates for President. One candidate in particular had remarkable numbers, particularly when it came to how much of the coverage was negative, versus positive. Who was it? Bachmann? Perry? Cain? If you guessed any of those three, you guessed wrong. One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all, the study found: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-1. Those assessments of the president have also been substantially more negative than positive every one of the 23 weeks studied. And in no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the president positive in tone. These are some of the findings of new work by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism that combines PEJ’s ongoing weekly content analysis with computer algorithmic technology developed by Crimson Hexagon. In combination, the two research methods assess coverage across more than 11,500 news media outlets each day. A separate analysis also tracks the level of discussion and tone across hundreds of thousands of blogs. The study covers the 23 weeks from May 2, when candidates began to announce, to October 9, one week ago—that first phase of what might be called The Media Primary. The blogosphere, it turns out, is proving a much rougher environment than the news media for candidates, including contenders associated with the Tea Party movement. But one candidate has emerged as the winner of the blog primary so far—Texas Congressman Ron Paul. But wait, there’s more. Guess who keeps getting happy, happy glowing coverage? Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin continued to display a gift for fascinating the media during these past five months. Though she never entered the race, finally announcing on October 5 that she would not run, Palin seemed to generate significant coverage whenever she hinted she might get into the contest. That was enough to make her the fourth-most-covered Republican figure in news coverage, and the most-discussed candidate in blogs. And despite her complaints about what she calls the “lamestream media,” Palin enjoyed coverage that was considerably more positive than negative—by a factor of almost 3-2. Bloggers, meanwhile, were much more disapproving. As if to prove the truth of this study, The Hill ran with an amazing headline today: Poll: Half of Americans believe Obama doesn’t deserve reelection Hmmm. Let’s see. If half of Americans believe he doesn’t deserve re-election, then that means the other half does, right? Which means that headline could easily have been flipped around to read “Half of Americans believe Obama deserves re-election.” And if that headline could have been flipped and wasn’t, one might ask why? Here’s another way they could have worded it: “Americans evenly split on whether Obama deserves re-election”. That would have been neutral, at least. That headline came from The Hill, which seems to have a permanent right-wing tilt. But here’s one of The Politico’s headlines: Obama Gets Low Marks With Jews . Uh-oh, that’s a core constituency, right? Oops! The headline is a bit misleading, since the question was specific to how the conflict between Israel and Palestine is being handled, not his overall rating. Bet you’d never have guessed that from the headline though, which I’m sure was intended. I’m still looking for that liberal media. Let’s go to the traditional media outlets and see what’s there. CNN.com was either neutral or just obsessed with last night’s Republican debate. Not much there and what was, was neutral. MSNBC.com next. Nope, no there, there. All about Republicans and debates. Nothing really about the President’s bus tour, which wrapped up in Virginia today, or anything else, for that matter. On to Fox News, where I will supply screen shots of below-the-fold headlines: enlarge That would be a slam article on Biden, featuring President Obama in the image. And then there’s this: enlarge Wow. There ya go. Lots and lots of negative, although I expect nothing less from Fox News. So for this night, anyway, the mainstream outlets are either ignoring the President altogether or slamming him, Fox News style. In the past, I have been the target of a lot of criticism for taking people on the “liberal” side of things to task for what I consider to be criticism that ignores reality. Take, for example, the public option debate. I hear this over and over, how the public option could have been reality if only the President had taken the bully pulpit and pounded Congress, kind of like he is now. Only, he’s pounding now and getting absolutely nothing in return for it. Yet I will still hear about how the President has some kind of magical power to convince Congress to roll over just because he said so. It has taken a toll, all that negativity, just as I said it would at the time. If you think otherwise, go back and look at that chart again, which includes blogs . Not right-wing blogs, but blogs, overall. 2012 is right around the corner. If you think nothing is at stake, I urge you to reconsider. The Supreme Court, the modest gains with the health care act (like covering pre-existing conditions and kids up to age 27 on parents’ policies, for example), what little financial industry regulation we were able to get — gone. Of course, we can count on women being sent back to the eighteenth century while people sleep in the street and children are allowed to work with no protections, unions are decertified and barred from existing, liberal votes go uncast and uncounted because of voter suppression and employees’ protections are rolled back. I’m not exaggerating. If you’ve watched what’s happening in the states you know I’m not exaggerating. It’s real, and we can’t count on media — blog, traditional media, print media or social media — to balance what they say and write about this President. If we’re not going to get his back, I would suggest it is time to breathe deep and get ready for what President Romney or Perry will serve up. In the past when I say this, people laugh. Quit laughing. Because if you’re not seeing what’s at stake and how skewed the reporting is that gets out to people less engaged and less interested than anyone reading this blog post right now, then you should take a closer look at what is right in front of us. Whatever your complaint with this President might be, I assure you it will look and sound nothing like the sound and fury of the United States going to hell down a fast slide under the guidance of a right-wing crazy type. There’s a reason Rick Perry wins elections. He tears down his opponents. He’ll do it this time too. First Romney, then Obama. And if no one is willing to line up behind Obama, I’m guessing we’ll all be Texas. Update: Andrew Sullivan, who I have a love-hate relationship with, echoes this theme with expansion : At some point, he needs to shuck off the restraint, and tell the actual story of the last three years – against the fantastic and self-serving lies and delusions we keep hearing in Republican debates and Beltway chatter. If he does it with panache, he won’t need a jumpsuit onto an aircraft carrier. And many of his missions may even be accomplished.
Continue reading …Where I Rant About the ‘Liberal Media’, Imbalance, and Unrelenting Negativity
October 21, 2011 No Comment
enlarge Earlier this week Pew Research published the results of a study of how media — broadcast, print and blogs — have covered the 2012 candidates for President. One candidate in particular had remarkable numbers, particularly when it came to how much of the coverage was negative, versus positive. Who was it? Bachmann? Perry? Cain? If you guessed any of those three, you guessed wrong. One man running for president has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment of all, the study found: Barack Obama. Though covered largely as president rather than a candidate, negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-1. Those assessments of the president have also been substantially more negative than positive every one of the 23 weeks studied. And in no week during these five months was more than 10% of the coverage about the president positive in tone. These are some of the findings of new work by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism that combines PEJ’s ongoing weekly content analysis with computer algorithmic technology developed by Crimson Hexagon. In combination, the two research methods assess coverage across more than 11,500 news media outlets each day. A separate analysis also tracks the level of discussion and tone across hundreds of thousands of blogs. The study covers the 23 weeks from May 2, when candidates began to announce, to October 9, one week ago—that first phase of what might be called The Media Primary. The blogosphere, it turns out, is proving a much rougher environment than the news media for candidates, including contenders associated with the Tea Party movement. But one candidate has emerged as the winner of the blog primary so far—Texas Congressman Ron Paul. But wait, there’s more. Guess who keeps getting happy, happy glowing coverage? Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin continued to display a gift for fascinating the media during these past five months. Though she never entered the race, finally announcing on October 5 that she would not run, Palin seemed to generate significant coverage whenever she hinted she might get into the contest. That was enough to make her the fourth-most-covered Republican figure in news coverage, and the most-discussed candidate in blogs. And despite her complaints about what she calls the “lamestream media,” Palin enjoyed coverage that was considerably more positive than negative—by a factor of almost 3-2. Bloggers, meanwhile, were much more disapproving. As if to prove the truth of this study, The Hill ran with an amazing headline today: Poll: Half of Americans believe Obama doesn’t deserve reelection Hmmm. Let’s see. If half of Americans believe he doesn’t deserve re-election, then that means the other half does, right? Which means that headline could easily have been flipped around to read “Half of Americans believe Obama deserves re-election.” And if that headline could have been flipped and wasn’t, one might ask why? Here’s another way they could have worded it: “Americans evenly split on whether Obama deserves re-election”. That would have been neutral, at least. That headline came from The Hill, which seems to have a permanent right-wing tilt. But here’s one of The Politico’s headlines: Obama Gets Low Marks With Jews . Uh-oh, that’s a core constituency, right? Oops! The headline is a bit misleading, since the question was specific to how the conflict between Israel and Palestine is being handled, not his overall rating. Bet you’d never have guessed that from the headline though, which I’m sure was intended. I’m still looking for that liberal media. Let’s go to the traditional media outlets and see what’s there. CNN.com was either neutral or just obsessed with last night’s Republican debate. Not much there and what was, was neutral. MSNBC.com next. Nope, no there, there. All about Republicans and debates. Nothing really about the President’s bus tour, which wrapped up in Virginia today, or anything else, for that matter. On to Fox News, where I will supply screen shots of below-the-fold headlines: enlarge That would be a slam article on Biden, featuring President Obama in the image. And then there’s this: enlarge Wow. There ya go. Lots and lots of negative, although I expect nothing less from Fox News. So for this night, anyway, the mainstream outlets are either ignoring the President altogether or slamming him, Fox News style. In the past, I have been the target of a lot of criticism for taking people on the “liberal” side of things to task for what I consider to be criticism that ignores reality. Take, for example, the public option debate. I hear this over and over, how the public option could have been reality if only the President had taken the bully pulpit and pounded Congress, kind of like he is now. Only, he’s pounding now and getting absolutely nothing in return for it. Yet I will still hear about how the President has some kind of magical power to convince Congress to roll over just because he said so. It has taken a toll, all that negativity, just as I said it would at the time. If you think otherwise, go back and look at that chart again, which includes blogs . Not right-wing blogs, but blogs, overall. 2012 is right around the corner. If you think nothing is at stake, I urge you to reconsider. The Supreme Court, the modest gains with the health care act (like covering pre-existing conditions and kids up to age 27 on parents’ policies, for example), what little financial industry regulation we were able to get — gone. Of course, we can count on women being sent back to the eighteenth century while people sleep in the street and children are allowed to work with no protections, unions are decertified and barred from existing, liberal votes go uncast and uncounted because of voter suppression and employees’ protections are rolled back. I’m not exaggerating. If you’ve watched what’s happening in the states you know I’m not exaggerating. It’s real, and we can’t count on media — blog, traditional media, print media or social media — to balance what they say and write about this President. If we’re not going to get his back, I would suggest it is time to breathe deep and get ready for what President Romney or Perry will serve up. In the past when I say this, people laugh. Quit laughing. Because if you’re not seeing what’s at stake and how skewed the reporting is that gets out to people less engaged and less interested than anyone reading this blog post right now, then you should take a closer look at what is right in front of us. Whatever your complaint with this President might be, I assure you it will look and sound nothing like the sound and fury of the United States going to hell down a fast slide under the guidance of a right-wing crazy type. There’s a reason Rick Perry wins elections. He tears down his opponents. He’ll do it this time too. First Romney, then Obama. And if no one is willing to line up behind Obama, I’m guessing we’ll all be Texas. Update: Andrew Sullivan, who I have a love-hate relationship with, echoes this theme with expansion : At some point, he needs to shuck off the restraint, and tell the actual story of the last three years – against the fantastic and self-serving lies and delusions we keep hearing in Republican debates and Beltway chatter. If he does it with panache, he won’t need a jumpsuit onto an aircraft carrier. And many of his missions may even be accomplished.
Continue reading …The Washington Post exposes Marco Rubio’s faulty family story: Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show During his rise to political prominence, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) frequently repeated a compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida. He was the son of exiles, he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after “a thug,” Fidel Castro, took power. But a review of documents — including naturalization papers and other official records — reveals that Rubio’s dramatic account of his family saga embellishes the facts. The documents show that Rubio’s parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence more than 21 / 2 years before Castro’s forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year’s Day 1959. It looks like Rubio embellished his family’s plight for political gain. In 2006, on the eve of his ascendancy to speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Rubio told an audience that “in January of 1959 a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba and countless Cubans were forced to flee and come here, many – most – here to America. When they arrived they were welcomed by the most compassionate people on all the Earth.” Wearing a red flower in his lapel, his voice sometimes emotional, he praised those who fled, calling them “a great generation.” But he also assured them: “Today your children and grandchildren are the secretary of commerce of the United States and multiple members of Congress, they are the CEO of Fortune 500 companies and successful entrepreneurs, they are Grammy winning artists and they are renowned journalists, they are a United States senator and soon, even speaker of the Florida House.” The speech drew heavy coverage in Florida, for it was a momentous event. Rubio was the first Cuban American to become speaker of the House in the Florida Legislature… read on And now it looks like Orly Taitz’ group of fanatics are doing us some good for a change. Miami Herald: Unable to prevent Barack Obama from becoming president, rigid followers of the Constitution have turned their attention to another young, charismatic politician many think could one day occupy the White House. The birthers are focusing on U.S. Sen Marco Rubio, the budding Republican star from Florida. “It’s nothing to do with him personally. But you can’t change the rules because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules,” said New Jersey lawyer Mario Apuzzo. Forget about the alleged Photoshopped birth certificates; the activists are not challenging whether Rubio was born in Miami. Rather, they say Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution which says “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The rub is that “natural born citizen” was never defined. The birthers rely on writings at the time of the formation of the republic and references in court cases since then to contend that “natural born” means a person born to U.S. citizens. Rubio was born in 1971 at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, his office said, but his parents did not become citizens until 1975. “Marco Rubio was born a Cuban citizen via his parents,” screams a headline on a blog by birther Charles Kerchner, who obtained copies of the naturalization petitions by Rubio’s parents in May, igniting talk that is spreading across the Web. I can’t lie and say that I’m not enjoying this, but isn’t he covered under the 14th amendment? At least these people are staying consistent with their weirdness. Rubio, who said that Social Security/Medicare Make Us Lazy has been a tea party hero. Rush Limbaugh anointed Rubio as the next big deal in the GOP so I wonder if he’ll step in and target one of his big constituencies, the Birthers. Who knew that WND would serve a useful purpose after all. But there is sufficient muddiness to fuel the birthers, many of whom are still angry with the Republican establishment for not taking their case against Obama more seriously. Rubio was among them, saying he did not think it was an issue. “The other shoe has dropped,” conservative figure Alan Keyes said on a radio program last month. “Now you’ve got Republicans talking about Marco Rubio for president when it’s obviously clear that he does not qualify. Regardless of party label, they don’t care about Constitution. It’s all just empty, lying lip service.” Kerchner said he decided to check out Rubio after hearing so much buzz about him as a vice presidential candidate. He said he contacted Rubio’s office to inquiry about his citizenship status at birth and was given the brush off. So Kerchner got in touch with the National Archives in Atlanta, which had the naturalization petitions for Rubio’s father Mario and mother Oriales. The documents, independently obtained by the St. Petersburg Times on Wednesday, show they sought and were given citizenship in 1975. “Senator Rubio should stand up for the Constitution and speak out about this and say that as much as he’d like to run someday for those offices, he is not constitutionally eligible to run for president or VP,” Kerchner wrote on his blog. A piece followed in World Net Daily, a repository of right-wing thought. Kerchner said the records revealed another truth: Rubio’s parents came to the U.S. in 1956 — three years before Fidel Castro took over. He accuses Rubio of embellishing his narrative as the son of Cuban exiles, a powerful tale he has used in his rapid climb in politics. And they’re also calling him a liar about his family’s history.
Continue reading …The Washington Post exposes Marco Rubio’s faulty family story: Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show During his rise to political prominence, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) frequently repeated a compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida. He was the son of exiles, he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after “a thug,” Fidel Castro, took power. But a review of documents — including naturalization papers and other official records — reveals that Rubio’s dramatic account of his family saga embellishes the facts. The documents show that Rubio’s parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence more than 21 / 2 years before Castro’s forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year’s Day 1959. It looks like Rubio embellished his family’s plight for political gain. In 2006, on the eve of his ascendancy to speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Rubio told an audience that “in January of 1959 a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba and countless Cubans were forced to flee and come here, many – most – here to America. When they arrived they were welcomed by the most compassionate people on all the Earth.” Wearing a red flower in his lapel, his voice sometimes emotional, he praised those who fled, calling them “a great generation.” But he also assured them: “Today your children and grandchildren are the secretary of commerce of the United States and multiple members of Congress, they are the CEO of Fortune 500 companies and successful entrepreneurs, they are Grammy winning artists and they are renowned journalists, they are a United States senator and soon, even speaker of the Florida House.” The speech drew heavy coverage in Florida, for it was a momentous event. Rubio was the first Cuban American to become speaker of the House in the Florida Legislature… read on And now it looks like Orly Taitz’ group of fanatics are doing us some good for a change. Miami Herald: Unable to prevent Barack Obama from becoming president, rigid followers of the Constitution have turned their attention to another young, charismatic politician many think could one day occupy the White House. The birthers are focusing on U.S. Sen Marco Rubio, the budding Republican star from Florida. “It’s nothing to do with him personally. But you can’t change the rules because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules,” said New Jersey lawyer Mario Apuzzo. Forget about the alleged Photoshopped birth certificates; the activists are not challenging whether Rubio was born in Miami. Rather, they say Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution which says “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The rub is that “natural born citizen” was never defined. The birthers rely on writings at the time of the formation of the republic and references in court cases since then to contend that “natural born” means a person born to U.S. citizens. Rubio was born in 1971 at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, his office said, but his parents did not become citizens until 1975. “Marco Rubio was born a Cuban citizen via his parents,” screams a headline on a blog by birther Charles Kerchner, who obtained copies of the naturalization petitions by Rubio’s parents in May, igniting talk that is spreading across the Web. I can’t lie and say that I’m not enjoying this, but isn’t he covered under the 14th amendment? At least these people are staying consistent with their weirdness. Rubio, who said that Social Security/Medicare Make Us Lazy has been a tea party hero. Rush Limbaugh anointed Rubio as the next big deal in the GOP so I wonder if he’ll step in and target one of his big constituencies, the Birthers. Who knew that WND would serve a useful purpose after all. But there is sufficient muddiness to fuel the birthers, many of whom are still angry with the Republican establishment for not taking their case against Obama more seriously. Rubio was among them, saying he did not think it was an issue. “The other shoe has dropped,” conservative figure Alan Keyes said on a radio program last month. “Now you’ve got Republicans talking about Marco Rubio for president when it’s obviously clear that he does not qualify. Regardless of party label, they don’t care about Constitution. It’s all just empty, lying lip service.” Kerchner said he decided to check out Rubio after hearing so much buzz about him as a vice presidential candidate. He said he contacted Rubio’s office to inquiry about his citizenship status at birth and was given the brush off. So Kerchner got in touch with the National Archives in Atlanta, which had the naturalization petitions for Rubio’s father Mario and mother Oriales. The documents, independently obtained by the St. Petersburg Times on Wednesday, show they sought and were given citizenship in 1975. “Senator Rubio should stand up for the Constitution and speak out about this and say that as much as he’d like to run someday for those offices, he is not constitutionally eligible to run for president or VP,” Kerchner wrote on his blog. A piece followed in World Net Daily, a repository of right-wing thought. Kerchner said the records revealed another truth: Rubio’s parents came to the U.S. in 1956 — three years before Fidel Castro took over. He accuses Rubio of embellishing his narrative as the son of Cuban exiles, a powerful tale he has used in his rapid climb in politics. And they’re also calling him a liar about his family’s history.
Continue reading …The Washington Post exposes Marco Rubio’s faulty family story: Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show During his rise to political prominence, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) frequently repeated a compelling version of his family’s history that had special resonance in South Florida. He was the son of exiles, he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after “a thug,” Fidel Castro, took power. But a review of documents — including naturalization papers and other official records — reveals that Rubio’s dramatic account of his family saga embellishes the facts. The documents show that Rubio’s parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence more than 21 / 2 years before Castro’s forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year’s Day 1959. It looks like Rubio embellished his family’s plight for political gain. In 2006, on the eve of his ascendancy to speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Rubio told an audience that “in January of 1959 a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba and countless Cubans were forced to flee and come here, many – most – here to America. When they arrived they were welcomed by the most compassionate people on all the Earth.” Wearing a red flower in his lapel, his voice sometimes emotional, he praised those who fled, calling them “a great generation.” But he also assured them: “Today your children and grandchildren are the secretary of commerce of the United States and multiple members of Congress, they are the CEO of Fortune 500 companies and successful entrepreneurs, they are Grammy winning artists and they are renowned journalists, they are a United States senator and soon, even speaker of the Florida House.” The speech drew heavy coverage in Florida, for it was a momentous event. Rubio was the first Cuban American to become speaker of the House in the Florida Legislature… read on And now it looks like Orly Taitz’ group of fanatics are doing us some good for a change. Miami Herald: Unable to prevent Barack Obama from becoming president, rigid followers of the Constitution have turned their attention to another young, charismatic politician many think could one day occupy the White House. The birthers are focusing on U.S. Sen Marco Rubio, the budding Republican star from Florida. “It’s nothing to do with him personally. But you can’t change the rules because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules,” said New Jersey lawyer Mario Apuzzo. Forget about the alleged Photoshopped birth certificates; the activists are not challenging whether Rubio was born in Miami. Rather, they say Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution which says “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The rub is that “natural born citizen” was never defined. The birthers rely on writings at the time of the formation of the republic and references in court cases since then to contend that “natural born” means a person born to U.S. citizens. Rubio was born in 1971 at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, his office said, but his parents did not become citizens until 1975. “Marco Rubio was born a Cuban citizen via his parents,” screams a headline on a blog by birther Charles Kerchner, who obtained copies of the naturalization petitions by Rubio’s parents in May, igniting talk that is spreading across the Web. I can’t lie and say that I’m not enjoying this, but isn’t he covered under the 14th amendment? At least these people are staying consistent with their weirdness. Rubio, who said that Social Security/Medicare Make Us Lazy has been a tea party hero. Rush Limbaugh anointed Rubio as the next big deal in the GOP so I wonder if he’ll step in and target one of his big constituencies, the Birthers. Who knew that WND would serve a useful purpose after all. But there is sufficient muddiness to fuel the birthers, many of whom are still angry with the Republican establishment for not taking their case against Obama more seriously. Rubio was among them, saying he did not think it was an issue. “The other shoe has dropped,” conservative figure Alan Keyes said on a radio program last month. “Now you’ve got Republicans talking about Marco Rubio for president when it’s obviously clear that he does not qualify. Regardless of party label, they don’t care about Constitution. It’s all just empty, lying lip service.” Kerchner said he decided to check out Rubio after hearing so much buzz about him as a vice presidential candidate. He said he contacted Rubio’s office to inquiry about his citizenship status at birth and was given the brush off. So Kerchner got in touch with the National Archives in Atlanta, which had the naturalization petitions for Rubio’s father Mario and mother Oriales. The documents, independently obtained by the St. Petersburg Times on Wednesday, show they sought and were given citizenship in 1975. “Senator Rubio should stand up for the Constitution and speak out about this and say that as much as he’d like to run someday for those offices, he is not constitutionally eligible to run for president or VP,” Kerchner wrote on his blog. A piece followed in World Net Daily, a repository of right-wing thought. Kerchner said the records revealed another truth: Rubio’s parents came to the U.S. in 1956 — three years before Fidel Castro took over. He accuses Rubio of embellishing his narrative as the son of Cuban exiles, a powerful tale he has used in his rapid climb in politics. And they’re also calling him a liar about his family’s history.
Continue reading …