July 29, 2008

A word from the Angry Left

From the Newsbusters e-mail tipline, which goes to many contributors, not just me:

This story seems to imply that your entire enterprise sucks hairy, misshapen balls:

Any feedback? Thanks, [name deleted]

PS: refusal to reply based on my tone -- as opposed to the substance of
the criticism, will be taken as further evidence of cowardice. Or possibly
evidence that you're too busy jerking off to that up your arsenal model to
bother answering email.

Actually, it doesn't imply it. It pretty much denotes it. But really:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.

The positive and negative remarks about each candidate are then totaled to calculate the percentages that cut for and against them.

Visual images and other more subjective cues are not assessed. But the tracking applies a measure of analytical rigor to a field rife with seat-of-the-pants fulminations.

Well, that's the rub now, isn't it? No visual images? Right. Like Obama in front of thousands of Berliners, while McCain is at a grocery store where cans are toppling from a shelf. And precisely what are "more subjective cues?" Hmm ... let's try to guess ...

Posted by Hube at July 29, 2008 10:55 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Let's see -- this moron begins with an crude, insulting sexual reference -- and then asserts that refusal to reply because of his tone is a sign of cowardice?

What a moron!

What it is really an indication of is that the recipient(s) rightly decided not to read any further than the word "balls".

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at July 29, 2008 01:49 PM

Like Obama in front of thousands of Berliners, while McCain is at a grocery store where cans are toppling from a shelf.

But. . . that's where they were that day. And that's what they were doing. Speaking to thousands of Berliners, and in a German diner and grocery store, respectively. The media (incl. FOX) just showed us where they were. The McCain camp could have avoided the strange and perhaps sad-seeming juxtaposition by scheduling something different on that particular day. It was an obvious campaign strategy, and I think if you asked the brass, they'd take it back.

Posted by: Regis at July 29, 2008 02:57 PM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?