Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

And the mainstream media isn't biased...
Quote | Reply
From the New York Times, a story about happenings in the Kerry camp election night (http://www.nytimes.com/...ampaign/04kerry.html):


For much of Tuesday, campaign workers exuded confidence after surveys of voters leaving the polls showed Mr. Kerry with an edge over Mr. Bush. But as the night wore on, the real results told a different story.

The critical moment came at 12:41 a.m. Wednesday, when, shortly after Florida had been painted red for Mr. Bush, Fox News declared that Ohio - and, very likely, the presidency - was in Republican hands.

Howard Wolfson, a strategist, burst into the "boiler room" in Washington where the brain trust was huddled and said, "we have 30 seconds" to stop the other networks from following suit.

The campaign's pollster, Mark Mellman, and the renowned organizer Michael Whouley quickly dialed ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC - and all but the last refrained from calling the race through the night. Then Mr. Wolfson banged out a simple, two-line statement expressing confidence that Mr. Kerry would win Ohio once the remaining ballots were counted.

"What was driving our decision making was the memory of how in 2000, by allowing Florida to go for Bush, a lot of momentum was blocked," said one person who was in the room. "Our whole goal was stop the train from moving that way."


Does anybody keep track of these type of stories? I'd love to find a website which chronicles liberal media bias.

king of the road says you move too slow
KING OF THE ROAD SAYS YOU MOVE TOO SLOW
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [sc3826] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The media sucks. They have no morals, no conscience, and absolutly no type of memory what so ever. I really wish we'd stop giving them money.
But, then again, where would I get my special interest stories?
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [sc3826] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Exactly what difference does it make? The polling places were closed everywhere by that point.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It left the Kerry camp with ability to try to drag things out in order to potentially justify some sort of challenge.

Even if it made no difference, why would the networks take marching orders from the Democratic campaign?

Tells you something, doesn't it.

I think the mainstream media's, especially the NY Times and CBS, so blatantly supporting one side backfired.
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Even if it made no difference, why would the networks take marching orders from the Democratic campaign?

They shouldn't. But couldn't this be a post hoc ergo propter hoc type assumption. I have'nt heard that those networks didn't call Ohio for Bush because of the Democrat's phone call. For all I know Fox called it for Bush because of their conservative bias - who knows?

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [sc3826] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There's nothing in this article that says that the reason networks didn't call Ohio for Pres Bush early was because of the calls from Democrats. Just because calls were made, and the networks didn't call Ohio, doesn't mean that the latter was caused by the former. Who's to say it wasn't Fox News who was partisan in prematurely calling Ohio for the President? each network has a method for determining when to "call" a state.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, real original slowguy.

;)

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, but it is funny. The networks had no problems calling NH or WI for Kerry with much smaller percentage margins.

At least NBC didn't fall in line. I guess they are the best of the major networks. No scandals that I can recall.
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
It left the Kerry camp with ability to try to drag things out in order to potentially justify some sort of challenge.

Even if it made no difference, why would the networks take marching orders from the Democratic campaign?

Tells you something, doesn't it.

I think the mainstream media's, especially the NY Times and CBS, so blatantly supporting one side backfired.


Wasn't it fun watching Dan Rather and Peter Jennings trying to keep the race alive. Man, even Juan Williams on Fox News could see the writing on the wall.

My favourite Dan Rather line of the night was: "This race is closer than Lassie and Timmy!" This was at around 3:30 am in the morning. Brit Hume and the boys had already packed up and went home. :-)
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
soory, we must have been writing at the same time. Nice West Wing reference by the way.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
" The networks had no problems calling NH or WI for Kerry with much smaller percentage margins."

The percentage margins aren't the only thing that goes into this. The percentages of precincts that are in is taken into account, but even that is misleading sometimes, because that's based on number of precincts, not number of voter. so a state with one big city could have a lot of precincts in, but the whole vote change once the one precinct with the big city is reported. Too many variables to sit here and make a real judgement about why they did or didn't call a state at any particular time.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [Trevor S] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, I have to admit, I did scan the networks early Wednesday morning. I thought Judy Woodruff was going to cry. It was pretty funny.

Was the CNN coverage as bad as it looked?
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, maybe, but it sure didn't look like a problem for them to call those two states for Kerry. I do think that they called them at an appropriate time. It is just with the contrast with OH that is important.

It was slam dunk around 2:30 based on reported results with 97% reporting. FOX and NBC called it. The others waited for over 12 hours I think, until Kerry gave it up.

They are in the ring for the Democrats instead of reporting from the outside.
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nice West Wing reference by the way.

?????

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Was the CNN coverage as bad as it looked?
I'm an engineer and I couldn't follow the math they were using to keep Kerry in. I wish you could of watched CBC coverage. Classic.
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [sc3826] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, its obvious the networks were still 'hoping' for a different outcome, but that's no surprise. I am guessing they were hoping for someone new to bash! If Kerry had won, his honeymoon would have been brief.

The media is biased toward making money. Advertising is God. Simple as that. The so-called 'liberal' bias is secondary to sucking up to the companies that advertise. Ask anyone that works at a newspaper or TV station: It's a lot easier to go after the mayor than go after the Car Dealership that puts $ thousands into your business.

What about conservative media bias? Very few major media outlets (in the U.S.) were skeptical in the buildup to Iraq #2: I think the pro-war columns outnumbered the ant-war columns like 10 to 1 before the war: They were gung-ho! The media was psyched! The media sold the war more than Bush ever did, IMO. Now they are critical (too critical in some cases, especially after not being very critical in '02), and people are pissed at the coverage.

The NY Times is liberal, but they are out of New York and they are snobs. So are the major networks, a bit. The news media is also usually biased against whoever is in power, because its fun to try to get them. The media went after Clinton, didn't they? Now that he is history they let him off the hook and make him look warm and fuzzy. Same for Reagan: He was demonized, then eulogized. Same will happen for Bush: They will bash him while he is in power (its their job, after all), but they will get nostalgic years down the line. Maybe the NY Times won't, but the mass media in general will. Just my opinion.
Last edited by: tbinmt: Nov 6, 04 18:06
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They are in the ring for the Democrats instead of reporting from the outside.

I agree with that, Art, but I have to say that I don't have a problem with a network waiting on the Kerry camp before calling Ohio for Bush. A huge part of the story this time around was whether or not the vote would be contested, and as long as the numbers were close enough to allow the possibility of a Kerry challenge, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a network to call the state for Bush.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, I have a huge problem with holding off on the call. How about if the network just calls them as they see them based upon available information?

What a concept. Unbiased decision making.
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Well, I have a huge problem with holding off on the call. How about if the network just calls them as they see them based upon available information?

What a concept. Unbiased decision making.


Art;

By 3:00 am on Wednesday morning it wasn't really a "call" anymore. Fox knew, NBC knew it and by Edwards' body language he knew it.

Cheers!

Trevor
Quote Reply
Re: And the mainstream media isn't biased... [sc3826] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply