I think I saw the video where he went off on the guy. If it's true that the older man held the floor for THREE MINUTES then I could see why he'd be pissy. I'm sure that his handlers were gnawing their hands wondering: Should I be glad that this is stoking our core followers or should I be worried this is alienating the Democratic moderates?
I didn't tell you not to argue that Dean is being treated unfairly be the media SeanJ, in fact I didn't tell you anything at all because you never listen to anybody in these threads anyway!
But what's the old adage? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, if you can't stand the flames, get out of the fire. Dean's on fire right now, and he's apparently done nothing to convince the media of his qualifications if you don't see them kissing his ass.
Hey, I just remembered the big love affair between the media and John McCain. Why hasn't Dean developed the same relationship with the media?
Why should anyone expect the media to "represent" their side anyway? Conservatives had had nothing but an uphill battle for their viewpoints for years. Now Liberals are claiming to have that malady.
How can there be a frontrunner when not one primary has taken place?
Sure there's polls. But that's it.
And since when is it fair game to just make-up shit about a candidate.
I can understand why Trumpt does it... or SDW... they do it all the time.
But reporters?
I'm sure if someone measured the number of assertions I've backed with links (most of which you discredit conveniently instead of giving thought to them) and the number of assertions you've back with links, I would easily come out ahead.
Dean is in trouble plain and simple because he is lying. He is also making claims for himself that he will not allow for others. Dean for example can change his mind on NAFTA but no one else can about their war vote. Dean can criticize other candidates, but darn it, they better not run ads against him.
This isn't even Republican vs. Democratic issues, it is simply human nature. Dean has lied so often and portrayed himself as so clean and so much better than others, that the other candidates have gotten pissed enough to spill blood to answer his claims.
That to me really says something, because most of this negative news is being dug up by Democrats. (Regardless of what you want to assert) He calls Clark a Republican, the DLC a Republican, he claims moral superiority on racial tolerance while not having a single face of color in his cabinet. He claims to want to screw the rich while being a child of rich privlege who checked out of the draft with a back that could still take him sking to "find" himself, etc.
Don't even get into the "I'm the only grassroots guy, it's my word, and only I can help YOU take back your country" bit.
If the campaign is getting bloody, it is just the other candidates hitting Dean with what he dished out.
George Bush was a disaster as the Governor of Texas...
Funny, the voters of Texas seemed to think he did a good job, given that he was the first governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four year terms. He won over 68% of the vote in his reelection. Yeah...he must have been a disaster. Oh wait...I forgot: The general public is stupid and ignorant and falls for the charms of Dubya.
And..Oh, poor, poor Howard Dean. The media was crazy for him just a short time ago, and really still is. Have we forgotten the covers of Time and Newsweek? Hmmm. He's being attacked because he is, or was, the frontrunner. He's also beign attacked because he says ridiculous things like "we shouldn't pre-judge jury trials" in reference to bin laden's guilt.
Yeah come on over dick head. My dad will work your ass until it falls off.
Oh yeah... well MY dad will work YOUR dad's ass off!
Then we can sit and have Dr. Pepper's while our dad's have it out.
Seriously though...
Quote:
75% of these guys are out there working their ass off because it's their job and like anybody who has one they want to do it the best that they possibly can. Almost every one I have met has integrity, and works pretty damn hard. Go out and talk to a few of them before you start spreading your stupid worthless bullshit about them.
I admittedly didn't look too close, but it seems to me that the site linked to agrees with you. They seem pissed off that the 25% NOT working their ass off are getting most of the exposure. Notice that the word journalists is in quotes when applied to the proverbial media whores, indicating a respect for real journalism but not for information prostitution. As to Chu_bakka's original post, yes, he did lump all reporters together with some of his statements, but the general gist of his argument also seems to be aimed at that same high-profile, high-sensationalism 25% (IMHO of course). An error in selection of wording perhaps, but I don't think it warranted ye olde "My dad will 'beat you up,'" the proverbial hydrogen bomb of the playground. Why don't we all go play on the swings...?
Coverage of Dean is significantly more negative than any of the other Democratic candidates. It's clear the establishment is out to get Dean and the media's treatment is one manifestation of this.
Given the link you posted, I find it odd you've made this particular statement. A simple check of the CMPA (who conducted the study) website will show you that this is not an accurate statement. Maybe you should read what the study says again... or better yet, I'll post it.
Quote:
Dean Versus the Dems?Only 49 percent of all on-air evaluations of former Vermont governor in 2003 were positive while the rest of the democratic field collectively received 78 percent favorable coverage.*
Quote:
* No other individual candidate received enough evaluations for a statistically reliable comparison.
Odd, according to you, this story says Dean gets more negative coverage than every other candidate. But the link you give to back this up leads to a study that specifically states that no candidate other than Dean was thoroughly evaluated.
rageous - the comparison was made between Dean and all the other candidates combined. That's a fair comparison.
As far as the general thesis of the thread, I believe it. It has seemed that way to me, and I'm not a Dean supporter.
But if you think this is bad, wait until the general election. The Dem, whoever it is, will get the same kind of negative coverage that Gore got, and Bush will just skate along to re-election.
Sure, all the other candidates combined looks like a big number, but that takes into account squeaky clean Joe and John Edwards who gets tremendous amounts of positive press. While people like Kucinich, Sharton and Mosely-Braun got very little coverage at all.
Look at Kerry. Here is a guy who far and away has had the most negative press. He was expected to be the frontrunner until Dean came on the scene. Now that he's not, we routinely get the "what's happened to Kerry's campaign" bit. News outlets claim he's lost his advantage of being the military guy with Clark's arrival. There was a lot of press saying he was doomed when he fired campaign staffers. More saying he was in trouble when he mortgaged his home for campaign cash... and so on. He has been under enormous amounts of scrutiny and negative press.
While collectively the Dems other than the ones named Dean get more positive press, it's a flawed statistic, because measuring one person against a group of people is not the way studies are conducted. If you add Dean to the mix with his unfavorable coverage, the Dems then all come out with collective good press by a healthy number. Conversely, as I pointed out above, if you single out the candidates that have been lumped together, you find some with better numbers than Dean, and most likely some with worse.
There may be some candidates who have gotten more negative coverage than Dean, but that's just your conjecture, and I strongly doubt it. Lieberman's and Edwards' campaigns have gone nowhere just as quickly as Kerry's. Dean has been the huge story in this campaign - he should be getting tremendous positive press, given what he's done. All the others should be getting negative press, given what they've done.
And BTW, that is the way studies are done, or at least can be done. You can compare one category to multiple other categories lumped together. It's done all the time. I still would have liked to see the others individually too, but in this situation, it's a fair comparison to make.
There may be some candidates who have gotten more negative coverage than Dean, but that's just your conjecture, and I strongly doubt it.
Well ok. That's just your conjecture, and I strongly doubt it!
Quote:
Lieberman's and Edwards' campaigns have gone nowhere just as quickly as Kerry's. Dean has been the huge story in this campaign - he should be getting tremendous positive press, given what he's done. All the others should be getting negative press, given what they've done.
Why should the frontrunner get positive press, and the rest get negative? This makes little to no sense. As far as Lieberman and Edwards are concerned, they shouldn't get as much flack for their current standing as opposed to Kerry, because Kerry was supposed to be the guy that had it all together. The real challenger. But until recently Kerry's message has really fallen flat.
Quote:
And BTW, that is the way studies are done, or at least can be done. You can compare one category to multiple other categories lumped together. It's done all the time. I still would have liked to see the others individually too, but in this situation, it's a fair comparison to make.
I understand this is the way studies CAN be done, but they shouldn't be done this way. Because if you use the same criteria used for this study, I'll bet you could also come up with the following conclusions:
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Kerry than other Democrats on network news
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Sharpton than other Democrats on network news
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Kucinich than other Democrats on network news
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Mosely-Braun than other Democrats on network news
Kerry got negative press because his campaign was faltering. And he fired campaign managers and wasn't raising very much money. Signs of a struggling campaign.
He did get plenty of bad press BEFORE Dean became the frontrunner... then the politcal reporters recalibrated their sites on Dean when he made the surge ahead in the polls.
I think Kerry would make a fine candidate if he got his shit together.
I was blasting the pack mentality reporters on the campaign trail... they all get an idea and then beat it to death. Whether true or not.
I could careless how many times Bush got re-elected.
The schools suck... it's polluted... Enron went bust... and they Killed more deathrow inmates than any other state. Defend his record not his time spent in the office.
And here's the Krugman mirroring what I said last night.
Earlier this week, Wesley Clark had some strong words about the state of the nation. "I think we're at risk with our democracy," he said. "I think we're dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame."
In other words, the general gets it: he understands that America is facing what Kevin Phillips, in his remarkable new book, "American Dynasty," calls a "Machiavellian moment." Among other things, this tells us that General Clark and Howard Dean, whatever they may say in the heat of the nomination fight, are on the same side of the great Democratic divide.
Most political reporting on the Democratic race, it seems to me, has gotten it wrong. Some journalists do, of course, insist on trivializing the whole thing: what I dread most, in the event of an upset in Iowa, is the return of reporting about the political significance of John Kerry's hair.
But even those who refrain from turning political reporting into gossip have used the wrong categories. Again and again, one reads that it's about the left wing of the Democratic party versus the centrists; but Mr. Dean was a very centrist governor, and his policy proposals are not obviously more liberal than those of his rivals.
The real division in the race for the Democratic nomination is between those who are willing to question not just the policies but also the honesty and the motives of the people running our country, and those who aren't.
What makes Mr. Dean seem radical aren't his policy positions but his willingness Ñ shared, we now know, by General Clark Ñ to take a hard line against the Bush administration. This horrifies some veterans of the Clinton years, who have nostalgic memories of elections that were won by emphasizing the positive. Indeed, George Bush's handlers have already made it clear that they intend to make his "optimism" Ñ as opposed to the negativism of his angry opponents Ñ a campaign theme. (Money-saving suggestion: let's cut directly to the scene where Mr. Bush dresses up as an astronaut, and skip the rest of his expensive, pointless Ñ but optimistic! Ñ Moon-base program.)
I didn't tell you not to argue that Dean is being treated unfairly be the media SeanJ, in fact I didn't tell you anything at all because you never listen to anybody in these threads anyway!
I never said you told *me* anything. I think it was fairly clear you were addressing a more general audience, and you effectively told that audience not to complain that Dean is being treated unfairly by the media.
"Am I hearing cries of Dean-bashing? Please. Try an argument that doesn't require the sad violin music...."
What is the argument we shouldn't try again, drewpops? Dean-bashing...which stands for unfair treatment in the media given the context of the thread. Anyway, I realize that may not be what you intended. I clearly said that I thought it read that way.
Still, you're telling us again not to complain that Dean is being treated unfairly by the media:
"But what's the old adage? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, if you can't stand the flames, get out of the fire. Dean's on fire right now, and he's apparently done nothing to convince the media of his qualifications if you don't see them kissing his ass."
"It's not the media's fault...it's Dean's fault...and if he can't handle it...he should just quit."
Well ok. That's just your conjecture, and I strongly doubt it!
Hey, you made an affirmative statement about Kerry getting more negative coverage than Dean, and normally you're supposed to back up a hypothesis like that. Well, this is AppleOutsider after all, so maybe my standards are too high.
Quote:
Why should the frontrunner get positive press, and the rest get negative? This makes little to no sense.
He should get positive press because of what he's done so far - taken the lead in the polls, having started out as a Kucinich/Braun/Sharpton <2% blip on the radar. Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt should be getting negative press because they were the reputed frontrunners 6-12 months ago, and haven't caught on. Sure, Dean should get scrutiny too, but it should be balanced against the positive press based on the support he's obtained.
Quote:
I understand this is the way studies CAN be done, but they shouldn't be done this way. Because if you use the same criteria used for this study, I'll bet you could also come up with the following conclusions:
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Kerry than other Democrats on network news
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Sharpton than other Democrats on network news
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Kucinich than other Democrats on network news
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Mosely-Braun than other Democrats on network news
I understand what you're saying. You run into trouble if it looks like you're going fishing. And I would like to see what the media coverage pattern on the others looked like individually. But:
1. Those conclusions you have above couldn't be drawn unless they were true.
2. There are good a priori reasons for singling Dean out compared to the others: he's the front runner, and he's gotten a lot more press attention than the others.
Sure, Dean should get scrutiny too, but it should be balanced against the positive press based on the support he's obtained.
Well, according to that study 49% of the press on Dean is positive, meaning 51% is negative. That sounds like balance to me. It's some of the other candidates that most likely aren't getting scrutinized enough that is the problem, apparently, for the collective number of the other candidates to reach a height of 78% favorability.
Over the Christmas holiday, my brother left Atlanta for Louisiana with his two Catahoula hounds loaded in the back seat of Buttercup. Ordinarily, he could reach the relative civilization of Covington before needing to refuel the diesel, but thatÕs without the dogs. Shortly after entering Alabama, he pulled over at a rest stop and followed the signs for pet owners. As he got out of the car, a redneck trucker parked close by began to heckle him. Less than a minute later, the rest stop attendant zipped up in a golf cart and told him to move. Not wanting a confrontation, he piled the dogs back in the car before they had a chance to ÒgoÓ, and headed down the road.
A few miles further, he pulled over on the side of the road to let the dogs out. As he got out of the car, he noticed a different trucker (but one heÕd also seen at the rest stop), pull off the highway, onto the shoulder and head straight for his car. As he tried to pull the dogs away from the car, the trucker veered off at the last millisecond, just before hitting them.
Unfortunately there are idiots everywhere who will harass people who don't agree with them. My in-laws were in New Jersey over the holidays. Their entire family is pretty well off, and with the exception of my in-laws they're all very liberal. This family only gets together once a year, but this get together was broke up early when they all got into a political shouting match and my in-laws stormed out.
Prior to this they spent the day in Newark, and made the mistake of driving their own car which has an American flag sticker in the rear window. Upon stopping off to eat, they were cornered by 2 metrosexuals who began to explain to them how displaying the flag symbolizes America's support for the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, the plunder of the Middle East, and the erosion of our civil rights.
Comments
I didn't tell you not to argue that Dean is being treated unfairly be the media SeanJ, in fact I didn't tell you anything at all because you never listen to anybody in these threads anyway!
But what's the old adage? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, if you can't stand the flames, get out of the fire. Dean's on fire right now, and he's apparently done nothing to convince the media of his qualifications if you don't see them kissing his ass.
Hey, I just remembered the big love affair between the media and John McCain. Why hasn't Dean developed the same relationship with the media?
Why should anyone expect the media to "represent" their side anyway? Conservatives had had nothing but an uphill battle for their viewpoints for years. Now Liberals are claiming to have that malady.
Makes me wonder: What's happening here?
Originally posted by Scott
Wait I thought you all told me the media was not bias
Have you ever been to Paris? Have you ever been to New Delhi? You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
How can there be a frontrunner when not one primary has taken place?
Sure there's polls. But that's it.
And since when is it fair game to just make-up shit about a candidate.
I can understand why Trumpt does it... or SDW... they do it all the time.
But reporters?
I'm sure if someone measured the number of assertions I've backed with links (most of which you discredit conveniently instead of giving thought to them) and the number of assertions you've back with links, I would easily come out ahead.
Dean is in trouble plain and simple because he is lying. He is also making claims for himself that he will not allow for others. Dean for example can change his mind on NAFTA but no one else can about their war vote. Dean can criticize other candidates, but darn it, they better not run ads against him.
This isn't even Republican vs. Democratic issues, it is simply human nature. Dean has lied so often and portrayed himself as so clean and so much better than others, that the other candidates have gotten pissed enough to spill blood to answer his claims.
That to me really says something, because most of this negative news is being dug up by Democrats. (Regardless of what you want to assert) He calls Clark a Republican, the DLC a Republican, he claims moral superiority on racial tolerance while not having a single face of color in his cabinet. He claims to want to screw the rich while being a child of rich privlege who checked out of the draft with a back that could still take him sking to "find" himself, etc.
Don't even get into the "I'm the only grassroots guy, it's my word, and only I can help YOU take back your country" bit.
If the campaign is getting bloody, it is just the other candidates hitting Dean with what he dished out.
Nick
George Bush was a disaster as the Governor of Texas...
Funny, the voters of Texas seemed to think he did a good job, given that he was the first governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four year terms. He won over 68% of the vote in his reelection. Yeah...he must have been a disaster. Oh wait...I forgot: The general public is stupid and ignorant and falls for the charms of Dubya.
And..Oh, poor, poor Howard Dean. The media was crazy for him just a short time ago, and really still is. Have we forgotten the covers of Time and Newsweek? Hmmm. He's being attacked because he is, or was, the frontrunner. He's also beign attacked because he says ridiculous things like "we shouldn't pre-judge jury trials" in reference to bin laden's guilt.
Originally posted by Argento
Yeah come on over dick head. My dad will work your ass until it falls off.
Oh yeah... well MY dad will work YOUR dad's ass off!
Then we can sit and have Dr. Pepper's while our dad's have it out.
Seriously though...
75% of these guys are out there working their ass off because it's their job and like anybody who has one they want to do it the best that they possibly can. Almost every one I have met has integrity, and works pretty damn hard. Go out and talk to a few of them before you start spreading your stupid worthless bullshit about them.
I admittedly didn't look too close, but it seems to me that the site linked to agrees with you. They seem pissed off that the 25% NOT working their ass off are getting most of the exposure. Notice that the word journalists is in quotes when applied to the proverbial media whores, indicating a respect for real journalism but not for information prostitution. As to Chu_bakka's original post, yes, he did lump all reporters together with some of his statements, but the general gist of his argument also seems to be aimed at that same high-profile, high-sensationalism 25% (IMHO of course). An error in selection of wording perhaps, but I don't think it warranted ye olde "My dad will 'beat you up,'" the proverbial hydrogen bomb of the playground. Why don't we all go play on the swings...?
Originally posted by Existence
Coverage of Dean is significantly more negative than any of the other Democratic candidates. It's clear the establishment is out to get Dean and the media's treatment is one manifestation of this.
Given the link you posted, I find it odd you've made this particular statement. A simple check of the CMPA (who conducted the study) website will show you that this is not an accurate statement. Maybe you should read what the study says again... or better yet, I'll post it.
Dean Versus the Dems?Only 49 percent of all on-air evaluations of former Vermont governor in 2003 were positive while the rest of the democratic field collectively received 78 percent favorable coverage.*
* No other individual candidate received enough evaluations for a statistically reliable comparison.
Odd, according to you, this story says Dean gets more negative coverage than every other candidate. But the link you give to back this up leads to a study that specifically states that no candidate other than Dean was thoroughly evaluated.
CMPA's take on Dean coverage
As far as the general thesis of the thread, I believe it. It has seemed that way to me, and I'm not a Dean supporter.
But if you think this is bad, wait until the general election. The Dem, whoever it is, will get the same kind of negative coverage that Gore got, and Bush will just skate along to re-election.
Look at Kerry. Here is a guy who far and away has had the most negative press. He was expected to be the frontrunner until Dean came on the scene. Now that he's not, we routinely get the "what's happened to Kerry's campaign" bit. News outlets claim he's lost his advantage of being the military guy with Clark's arrival. There was a lot of press saying he was doomed when he fired campaign staffers. More saying he was in trouble when he mortgaged his home for campaign cash... and so on. He has been under enormous amounts of scrutiny and negative press.
While collectively the Dems other than the ones named Dean get more positive press, it's a flawed statistic, because measuring one person against a group of people is not the way studies are conducted. If you add Dean to the mix with his unfavorable coverage, the Dems then all come out with collective good press by a healthy number. Conversely, as I pointed out above, if you single out the candidates that have been lumped together, you find some with better numbers than Dean, and most likely some with worse.
And BTW, that is the way studies are done, or at least can be done. You can compare one category to multiple other categories lumped together. It's done all the time. I still would have liked to see the others individually too, but in this situation, it's a fair comparison to make.
Originally posted by BRussell
There may be some candidates who have gotten more negative coverage than Dean, but that's just your conjecture, and I strongly doubt it.
Well ok. That's just your conjecture, and I strongly doubt it!
Lieberman's and Edwards' campaigns have gone nowhere just as quickly as Kerry's. Dean has been the huge story in this campaign - he should be getting tremendous positive press, given what he's done. All the others should be getting negative press, given what they've done.
Why should the frontrunner get positive press, and the rest get negative? This makes little to no sense. As far as Lieberman and Edwards are concerned, they shouldn't get as much flack for their current standing as opposed to Kerry, because Kerry was supposed to be the guy that had it all together. The real challenger. But until recently Kerry's message has really fallen flat.
And BTW, that is the way studies are done, or at least can be done. You can compare one category to multiple other categories lumped together. It's done all the time. I still would have liked to see the others individually too, but in this situation, it's a fair comparison to make.
I understand this is the way studies CAN be done, but they shouldn't be done this way. Because if you use the same criteria used for this study, I'll bet you could also come up with the following conclusions:
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Kerry than other Democrats on network news
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Sharpton than other Democrats on network news
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Kucinich than other Democrats on network news
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Mosely-Braun than other Democrats on network news
He did get plenty of bad press BEFORE Dean became the frontrunner... then the politcal reporters recalibrated their sites on Dean when he made the surge ahead in the polls.
I think Kerry would make a fine candidate if he got his shit together.
I was blasting the pack mentality reporters on the campaign trail... they all get an idea and then beat it to death. Whether true or not.
I could careless how many times Bush got re-elected.
The schools suck... it's polluted... Enron went bust... and they Killed more deathrow inmates than any other state. Defend his record not his time spent in the office.
And here's the Krugman mirroring what I said last night.
Krug's the MAN!
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/opinion/16KRUG.html
Who Gets It?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 16, 2004
Earlier this week, Wesley Clark had some strong words about the state of the nation. "I think we're at risk with our democracy," he said. "I think we're dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame."
In other words, the general gets it: he understands that America is facing what Kevin Phillips, in his remarkable new book, "American Dynasty," calls a "Machiavellian moment." Among other things, this tells us that General Clark and Howard Dean, whatever they may say in the heat of the nomination fight, are on the same side of the great Democratic divide.
Most political reporting on the Democratic race, it seems to me, has gotten it wrong. Some journalists do, of course, insist on trivializing the whole thing: what I dread most, in the event of an upset in Iowa, is the return of reporting about the political significance of John Kerry's hair.
But even those who refrain from turning political reporting into gossip have used the wrong categories. Again and again, one reads that it's about the left wing of the Democratic party versus the centrists; but Mr. Dean was a very centrist governor, and his policy proposals are not obviously more liberal than those of his rivals.
The real division in the race for the Democratic nomination is between those who are willing to question not just the policies but also the honesty and the motives of the people running our country, and those who aren't.
What makes Mr. Dean seem radical aren't his policy positions but his willingness Ñ shared, we now know, by General Clark Ñ to take a hard line against the Bush administration. This horrifies some veterans of the Clinton years, who have nostalgic memories of elections that were won by emphasizing the positive. Indeed, George Bush's handlers have already made it clear that they intend to make his "optimism" Ñ as opposed to the negativism of his angry opponents Ñ a campaign theme. (Money-saving suggestion: let's cut directly to the scene where Mr. Bush dresses up as an astronaut, and skip the rest of his expensive, pointless Ñ but optimistic! Ñ Moon-base program.)
cont.
Originally posted by drewprops
I didn't tell you not to argue that Dean is being treated unfairly be the media SeanJ, in fact I didn't tell you anything at all because you never listen to anybody in these threads anyway!
I never said you told *me* anything. I think it was fairly clear you were addressing a more general audience, and you effectively told that audience not to complain that Dean is being treated unfairly by the media.
"Am I hearing cries of Dean-bashing? Please. Try an argument that doesn't require the sad violin music...."
What is the argument we shouldn't try again, drewpops? Dean-bashing...which stands for unfair treatment in the media given the context of the thread. Anyway, I realize that may not be what you intended. I clearly said that I thought it read that way.
Still, you're telling us again not to complain that Dean is being treated unfairly by the media:
"But what's the old adage? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, if you can't stand the flames, get out of the fire. Dean's on fire right now, and he's apparently done nothing to convince the media of his qualifications if you don't see them kissing his ass."
"It's not the media's fault...it's Dean's fault...and if he can't handle it...he should just quit."
Originally posted by rageous
Well ok. That's just your conjecture, and I strongly doubt it!
Hey, you made an affirmative statement about Kerry getting more negative coverage than Dean, and normally you're supposed to back up a hypothesis like that. Well, this is AppleOutsider after all, so maybe my standards are too high.
Why should the frontrunner get positive press, and the rest get negative? This makes little to no sense.
He should get positive press because of what he's done so far - taken the lead in the polls, having started out as a Kucinich/Braun/Sharpton <2% blip on the radar. Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt should be getting negative press because they were the reputed frontrunners 6-12 months ago, and haven't caught on. Sure, Dean should get scrutiny too, but it should be balanced against the positive press based on the support he's obtained.
I understand this is the way studies CAN be done, but they shouldn't be done this way. Because if you use the same criteria used for this study, I'll bet you could also come up with the following conclusions:
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Kerry than other Democrats on network news
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Sharpton than other Democrats on network news
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Kucinich than other Democrats on network news
Watchdog study finds more criticism of Mosely-Braun than other Democrats on network news
I understand what you're saying. You run into trouble if it looks like you're going fishing. And I would like to see what the media coverage pattern on the others looked like individually. But:
1. Those conclusions you have above couldn't be drawn unless they were true.
2. There are good a priori reasons for singling Dean out compared to the others: he's the front runner, and he's gotten a lot more press attention than the others.
Originally posted by BRussell
Sure, Dean should get scrutiny too, but it should be balanced against the positive press based on the support he's obtained.
Well, according to that study 49% of the press on Dean is positive, meaning 51% is negative. That sounds like balance to me. It's some of the other candidates that most likely aren't getting scrutinized enough that is the problem, apparently, for the collective number of the other candidates to reach a height of 78% favorability.
Spinning polls even.
here's a fairly depressing story... think twice before driving through some rural areas with a Dean bumper sticker on your car.
http://www.brushstroke.tv/week04_1.html
Over the Christmas holiday, my brother left Atlanta for Louisiana with his two Catahoula hounds loaded in the back seat of Buttercup. Ordinarily, he could reach the relative civilization of Covington before needing to refuel the diesel, but thatÕs without the dogs. Shortly after entering Alabama, he pulled over at a rest stop and followed the signs for pet owners. As he got out of the car, a redneck trucker parked close by began to heckle him. Less than a minute later, the rest stop attendant zipped up in a golf cart and told him to move. Not wanting a confrontation, he piled the dogs back in the car before they had a chance to ÒgoÓ, and headed down the road.
A few miles further, he pulled over on the side of the road to let the dogs out. As he got out of the car, he noticed a different trucker (but one heÕd also seen at the rest stop), pull off the highway, onto the shoulder and head straight for his car. As he tried to pull the dogs away from the car, the trucker veered off at the last millisecond, just before hitting them.
cont.
Prior to this they spent the day in Newark, and made the mistake of driving their own car which has an American flag sticker in the rear window. Upon stopping off to eat, they were cornered by 2 metrosexuals who began to explain to them how displaying the flag symbolizes America's support for the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, the plunder of the Middle East, and the erosion of our civil rights.
Metrosexuals running rampant!
hehe