<p>“Today, Barack Obama took his European tour to Germany. (neutral) He was greeted by an enthusiast throng of Germans (positive), a crowd estimated to be about 200,000. (neutral). But not everyone in Germany was happy to see the presidential contender (negative). Then quote from unhappy German. (negative).”</p>
<p>That’s the kind of thing I think they’re looking at.</p>
<p>“While Obama was in Germany, GOP presidential contender John McCain spoke to a crowd in XXXX, talking about his plan for health care. (neutral). etc.”</p>
<p>I don’t think the candidates have to be doing the exact same things to draw comparisons of the coverage.</p>
<p>Yes, because Bill O’Reilly and Limbaugh say that the media is biased toward Obama, then of course, the media is biased toward Obama! I don’t know what news you guys are watching, but most of the media is neutral toward McCain, while critical of Obama. Compared to Obama, McCain is rarely criticized by anyone–but Olberman. Yes, Obama gets more coverage. But when ALL of McCain’s campaign speeches focus on attacking Obaman (what a classy guy, that McCain), what do you expect? When was the last time you heard a speech by Obama attacked McCain, and when was the last time you DIDN’T hear a speech by McCain that attacked Obama? Fox news and McCain’s campaign spend all their time attacking Obama, and Obama has no one who openly sings his praises. If anything, the media is biased toward McCain. McCain makes blunder after blunder, but those are just passed over.</p>
<p>I still don’t understand how they measure negative news, they are just calculating this “negative” coverage by using a very subjective criteria.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you really serious about this question? Obama not attacking McCain??</p>
<p>Maybe so, but I wish I had the chance to decide that for myself. Honest to Pete, we ONLY get ultra conservative radio in my neck of the woods. … We apparently do get Mike McConnell (I checked), but I’ve never tuned in–probably because I’m so busy reading Marx and Mao … I googled McConnell, though, and saw a list of topics he’s discussed on recent shows; he may not be the shrieking clown that Limbaugh is, but it sounds like he allots plenty of negative air time to Obama and has a pretty conservative agenda. … But because I like you pmrlcomm, I’ll make a note to tune in next weekend and keep an open mind! (But then you need to read one of Al Franken’s books. Doesn’t matter which one. They’re all good. :D)</p>
<p>You are correct, sir. Olbermann is the liberal counterpart to Hannity, O’Reilly, and the billion other idiotic right-wing television and radio pundits.</p>
<p>If the crowd were enthusiastically cheering for Obama,and they report it, wouldn’t that be a fact? It would be strange if they did not report on the behavior of the crowd.</p>
<p>^^ See, that’s why you can’t really conclude anything from the data, and why the media, by its very nature, can’t be “objective” no matter how much they try.</p>
<p>You’d have to have some really really dry reporting in order to achieve any semblance of “objectivity”. Does anyone (in media) do this? </p>
<p>It’s all very subtle (sometimes) - almost like subliminal messages!</p>
<p>And of course you’ve got some reporters who don’t even try to “dial it back” and heap on the praise or crticism… </p>
<p>There’s a diff. btwn taking a nuanced stance on complicated issues and taking totallt flip-flopping simply to pander.</p>
<p>And heck, McCain can’t even remember what his previous position or what he had previously stated (despite there being video tape to the contrary).</p>
I googled McConnell, though, and saw a list of topics he’s discussed on recent shows; he may not be the shrieking clown that Limbaugh is, but it sounds like he allots plenty of negative air time to Obama and has a pretty conservative agenda. … But because I like you pmrlcomm, I’ll make a note to tune in next weekend and keep an open mind! (But then you need to read one of Al Franken’s books. Doesn’t matter which one. They’re all good. :D)</p>