How Obama Was Elected.

[Calabrio]

And one more point.
Book sales.

Three books were at the top of the NY Times best seller list throughout the build up to the November election.

“The Obama Nation” by Jerome Corsi
“Fleeced” by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
“The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate” by David Freddoso

The phenomenol success of these books, combined with the sales of Obama's own memoirs demonstrates that there was a massive interest in finding out who Obama really was. This indicates that the media was not responding to the "demand" of the public. They ignored this demand and instead just acted as an extension of Obama's campaign.

 

[foxpaws]

very little access to Biden. Even his announcement as VP was strategically timed to fall on a slow news day to limit Biden's exposure.

Well, that makes no sense... If you allow the vp to be announced on a slow news day, then the biggest item in the news is your candidate... I don't understand the logic here Calabrio.

The Obama campaign wanted to have Biden to prop us his foreign policy credibility with "undecideds" (read: uninformed) and through their friends in the media and their savy, they managed the narrative giving people the impression Joe Biden actually is a wise man when it comes to foreign policy. Of course, history contradicts that, but... who's going to report it?

FOX? And certainly the right never tried to appeal to the 'uninformed'. By focusing on Ayers, the McCain campaign wanted to divert media attention away from the economy - an issue where they were losing, big time. An issue that probably cost them the election. The McCain campaign was severely flawed, even you have said so Calabrio.

Nope. TV news viewership is down. The NY Times is virtually bankrupt.
The media was accommodating a demand that didn't exist. They were certainly pandering, but it wasn't to the larger audiences.

Did you notice - I agreed with the result - what I did do was question your 'causes'. Almost all 'traditional' media is down, across the board. Internet entertainment and news delivery is killing traditional media - Traditional television media is skewing lower - as far as education, income, buying power, savings, etc. That is who they are pandering too. Focus TV media, which has a tendency to track right/conservative - is holding viewership a bit better, but not anything to shout about. They did devote time to investigating Obama, because they know that is where their numbers are.

There have been some ideas about why the more extreme right wing media does better than the counterpart on the other side. Why heavily skewed left wing media doesn't do as well. For example Olbermann vs O'Reilly. None of it is very flattering to the right. Sorry - just the way it is...

Then where was the dirt on Obama? There certainly is plenty of it? Why don't people know more about Rezko, Ayres, Write, Marshal? Why didn't they do tabloid stories on his deceased mother? His book is full of personal and incriminating stories, why weren't they ever spoken of in the MSM? Those things would have guaranteed high ratings.

Probably not high ratings - the 'people' didn't seem very receptive to attacks on Obama - those of us on the left saw this during the primaries, and I wondered the same thing. I don't know why it happened, but it did. The combination of how do you attack a high profile black politician, and coupled with the few times it was done it skewed terribly was a death knell to negative Obama press.

I can't change it - was the msm in love with Obama - maybe somewhat - because it seemed to be the thing to do at the time. It got good ratings.

We didn't create the press in our image,
the press has the power to influence and shape our view of the world. In doing so, they can shape the culture without us evening knowing.

The press is exactly what we created it to be. It isn't some pedestaled entity that is answerable to no one. It is answerable to us. We allowed this to happen. We accepted it, watched it, barely questioned it. It may have influenced us, but we allowed it - so, who is at fault? The press, or us? We are at fault - don't go off whining about how terrible it is, how left it is, how wrong it is, the people allowed it to become that.

Free market media. You cry about socialism - fine - I hate the idea too. But, it sounds like you want socialistic media, controlled, watched, monitored...

Live with it - we have free market media... or change it. That is what free market is all about - control of the people.

Those aren't Nancy Pelosi clones picking up seats in Alaska, the Carolinas, or Colorado.

Ah, well, it is Udall picking up a seat in Colorado - I believe he is almost as left as Peloski...

 

[Calabrio]

Well, that makes no sense... If you allow the vp to be announced on a slow news day, then the biggest item in the news is your candidate... I don't understand the logic here Calabrio.

Then allow me to clarify. There are news cycles. Obama made his Biden announcement on a Friday.
Friday is the day you usually release news if you want it to be buried.

FOX? And certainly the right never tried to appeal to the 'uninformed'. By focusing on Ayers, the McCain campaign wanted to divert media attention away from the economy - an issue where they were losing, big time. An issue that probably cost them the election. The McCain campaign was severely flawed, even you have said so Calabrio.

You just avoided ignored my point and introduced something completely unrelated. But I'll address it anyway. The use of Bill Ayers in the campaign absolutely DID NOT cost McCain the election. There were plenty of other reasons for that. The misuse of the Bill Ayers association simply further demonstrates why they lost though.

Did you notice - I agreed with the result - what I did do was question your 'causes'. Almost all 'traditional' media is down, across the board. Internet entertainment and news delivery is killing traditional media .....

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't say that the media was destroying conservatives and protecting Obama because of market demand while you also acknowledge that viewership and consumption is at near death levels through out the media EXCEPT with the outlets that are center, center-right leaning in coverage.

Probably not high ratings - the 'people' didn't seem very receptive to attacks on Obama -

I didn't say "attacks," I'm just talking about critical and honest journalism. That didn't exist.

I can't change it - was the msm in love with Obama - maybe somewhat - because it seemed to be the thing to do at the time. It got good ratings.

But, in the same breath, you also say that the ratings were dropping through the floor.

The media was in love with Obama and this love affair influenced their reporting, even more so than in previous years. They continued their advocacy despite low ratings and plunging credibility.

The press is exactly what we created it to be. It isn't some pedestaled entity that is answerable to no one. It is answerable to us. We allowed this to happen. We accepted it, watched it, barely questioned it.

And when the credibility or objectivity of the press has been called into question by people like me, people in the media or on the political left were quick and aggressive to say it was a paranoid charge and perpetuate the impression that the msm was objective. They aren't nor have they ever been.

It ultimately is answerable to us. And that's why the traditional media is loosing viewership, revenue, and credibility.

Free market media. You cry about socialism - fine - I hate the idea too. But, it sounds like you want socialistic media, controlled, watched, monitored...

Absolutely not. I'm drawing attention to the bias, pointing it out, and attempting to expose the lie that the media perpetrates- that they are objective.

Any media outlet should be permitted to advocate anything they'd like. I just think they should be honest and transparent about it. That way the free market works. The media, as it's been through the 20th century, could be charged with FALSE ADVERTISING. Selling itself as something that it isn't.

Ah, well, it is Udall picking up a seat in Colorado - I believe he is almost as left as Peloski...

No he's not.

 

[shagdrum]

The press is exactly what we created it to be. It isn't some pedestaled entity that is answerable to no one. It is answerable to us. We allowed this to happen. We accepted it, watched it, barely questioned it. It may have influenced us, but we allowed it - so, who is at fault? The press, or us? We are at fault - don't go off whining about how terrible it is, how left it is, how wrong it is, the people allowed it to become that.

Free market media. You cry about socialism - fine - I hate the idea too. But, it sounds like you want socialistic media, controlled, watched, monitored...

Live with it - we have free market media... or change it. That is what free market is all about - control of the people.

The liberal MSM was not created through the free market. It was created out of the "fairness doctrine". We are slowly seeing the shift away from that (the "Market correction" if you want) but it is a very slow process that will take a least a generation to achieve, probably.

The Media was not "created in our image", it was taken over by the liberal elites with the fairness doctrine. Now it is slowly coming more in line with most of america, but the liberal MSM are fighting it and getting more biased in their reporting in the process.

 

[foxpaws]

Then allow me to clarify. There are news cycles. Obama made his Biden announcement on a Friday.
Friday is the day you usually release news if you want it to be buried.

Nope, pre-weekend hype is what you want unless you are releasing financial news...

You just avoided ignored my point and introduced something completely unrelated. But I'll address it anyway. The use of Bill Ayers in the campaign absolutely DID NOT cost McCain the election. There were plenty of other reasons for that. The misuse of the Bill Ayers association simply further demonstrates why they lost though.

No the economy issue was very pivotal in losing McCain the election - and his campaign was trying to divert attention away (using Ayers) from an issue where they were losing...

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't say that the media was destroying conservatives and protecting Obama because of market demand while you also acknowledge that viewership and consumption is at near death levels through out the media EXCEPT with the outlets that are center, center-right leaning in coverage.

The media is at death levels because of the introduction of the internet. The only media that seems to be hanging on is right leaning. There are lots of ideas behind that. One is that liberals as well as the youth have a tendency to look to many sources of media for information, and the internet is a good place to gather lots of media types under one umbrella - I can watch CBS news, read the Times and listen to NPR all on my computer. Young people hardly watch news TV - they almost exclusively look for their information on the internet. Older demographics have a tendency to stay with more traditional media, especially TV and radio, and currently the right is skewing fairly old. That is one of many reasons it appears that more traditional media that leans right is doing better currently..

And when the credibility or objectivity of the press has been called into question by people like me, people in the media or on the political left were quick and aggressive to say it was a paranoid charge and perpetuate the impression that the msm was objective. They aren't nor have they ever been.

It ultimately is answerable to us. And that's why the traditional media is loosing viewership, revenue, and credibility.

And, so it should be - as I said - it has always been answerable to us - and we allowed it down the liberal road. I also believe that as the media starts to change, we will become more aware of the non-objective status of the media. That it will become a 'selling' point, as it is now on FOX.

Any media outlet should be permitted to advocate anything they'd like. I just think they should be honest and transparent about it. That way the free market works. The media, as it's been through the 20th century, could be charged with FALSE ADVERTISING. Selling itself as something that it isn't.

Yes they should be. Parts of the public have continued to press for un-baised reporting in the media - the media I believe felt guilty not giving us that standard. I now think that it is beginning to show that it doesn't matter to the majority of Americans, that opportunity to view non-biased media. I really think it will begin to be labeled as such.

And the best one.... about Udall not being extremely liberal....

No he's not.

I live in Boulder county... his district... He has voted with his party 96% of the time - with Pelosi. He is as liberal as they get... He represents one of the most liberal sections of the entire United States - heck, Boulder and Berkley are identical...

Not liberal....

 

[foxpaws]

The liberal MSM was not created through the free market. It was created out of the "fairness doctrine". We are slowly seeing the shift away from that (the "Market correction" if you want) but it is a very slow process that will take a least a generation to achieve, probably.

The Media was not "created in our image", it was taken over by the liberal elites with the fairness doctrine. Now it is slowly coming more in line with most of america, but the liberal MSM are fighting it and getting more biased in their reporting in the process.

The fairness doctrine has been off the table for a generation... A generation that has also seen huge changes in how the media is presented.

I know it is a scary word - 'change' - but, learn to make it work for 'your' side too. Now that the media you want so badly - broadcast TV - is ripe for the picking because most of the demos that are watching it should be open to your viewpoint - jump on it - don't wait, and quit crying about it. Stay at home and watch TV - buy those products that advertise on Rush, call in and make your voice heard...

Who knows - there may be actually a couple of million people still watching broadcast TV by 2012...

 

[shagdrum]

The media is at death levels because of the introduction of the internet.

Did you read that article I posted? I guess I should have left part of the quote in, but I didn't think it was relevant...

My summary of the way some of the established media has responded to the Internet is this: It's not newspapers that might become obsolete. It's some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper's most precious asset: the bond with its readers...

...The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly--and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception...

...It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news--and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story, it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened...Today, editors are losing this power. The Internet, for example, provides access to thousands of new sources that cover things an editor might ignore. And if you aren't satisfied with that, you can start up your own blog, and cover and comment on the news yourself. Journalists like to think of themselves as watchdogs, but they haven't always responded well when the public calls them to account...

...A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let's be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves...

...[newspapers can still count on circulation gains] if papers provide readers with news they can trust.​

 

[shagdrum]

The fairness doctrine has been off the table for a generation... A generation that has also seen huge changes in how the media is presented.

That is questionable, at best. A generation is traditionally defined as 30 years. The fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987; that was 21 years ago. hardly a generation, by that standard.

I am the generation that has "seen huge changes in how the media was presented". I was 7 years old when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. While the avenues to get news have changed dramatically (Internet, talk radio, etc.), the bias in reporting by the MSM has not. If anything, it has gotten worse. That is why the alternative media is so sucessful. It isn't the Internet, it is the arrogance and unwillingness to change on the part of the elites in the MSM.

 

[foxpaws]

As you stated your article is an interview with Murdock... He sort of has a stake in the newspaper business. It is best for him to keep the money flowing in. I doubt if he would just come right out and say - yep, the newpaper business is dying and probably can't be revived.

He also owns myspace... I bet he is far more happy with that little investment then his newspaper holdings. But, he has even been a little out of touch with that... stating in September 2006 - that he expected MySpace Video to overtake YouTube in 60 to 70 days. yea, right...

 

[shagdrum]

They asked the question to get the answer that they wanted.

The questions were very skewed, and certainly right biased, but, Zieg can commission any type of poll he wants, if he has the money to waste...

Heck, I can commission a poll too... and just ask people who voted for McCain all sorts of leading questions - what blogger fun!!!

Besides the question on seeing Russia from Alaska, what questions were leading, loaded or otherwise biased, and how were they so?

Unless you can provide specifics, then this is obviously merely an attempt to marginalize and smear...

 

[foxpaws]

That is questionable, at best. A generation is traditionally defined as 30 years. The fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987; that was 21 years ago. hardly a generation, by that standard.

I am the generation that has "seen huge changes in how the media was presented". I was 7 years old when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. While the avenues to get news have changed dramatically (Internet, talk radio, etc.), the bias in reporting by the MSM has not. If anything, it has gotten worse. That is why the alternative media is so sucessful. It isn't the Internet, it is the arrogance and unwillingness to change on the part of the elites in the MSM.

Shag - you might want to check out this, I was being generous - generations are about 15 years in length now...
article

Or, just read the second paragraph in your wiki reference...

Firstly, because generational cohorts are changing so quickly in response to new technologies, changing career and study options, and because of shifting societal values, their characteristics can change in less than two decades.

Well, enough on semantics...

I guess time will tell on the fate of broadcast media - I think it is pretty much 'old news' and will die away as a news reporting outlet.

Do you really think that the bias in the media had nothing to do with the complacency and acceptance of the American people?

 

[shagdrum]

As you stated your article is an interview with Murdock... He sort of has a stake in the newspaper business. It is best for him to keep the money flowing in. I doubt if he would just come right out and say - yep, the newpaper business is dying and probably can't be revived.

Ad hominem circumstantial...

He is not getting out of the newspaper business. In fact, he has been getting more involved in it. In December of last year, Murdoch acquired The WSJ. If he was just being dishonest in his argument, and really thought that the newspaper business was dying, he would be pulling out. It is clear that he doesn't think the newspaper business is dying. Ever heard the term, "follow the money"?

 

[shagdrum]

Do you really think that the bias in the media had nothing to do with the complacency and acceptance of the American people?

What complacency and acceptance?Wwhen the people are given a choice between the MSM and the new media, they overwhelmingly choose the new media. The free market (and the trends in viewership) pretty well shows what news sources more accurately reflect the views of most of American society, and it isn't the liberal media.

 

[foxpaws]

I am saying shag that Murdcock wouldn't be cutting off his ... to save his...

He isn't going to state that he thinks the newspaper business is dying, because he has a stake in it.

And he is buying because they are pretty darn cheap right now - he is betting that he can create those little right wing pockets that will keep those newspapers afloat and profitable for a short period of time. Until their readership gets so old they can't read...

 

[foxpaws]

What complacency and acceptance?Wwhen the people are given a choice between the MSM and the new media, they overwhelmingly choose the new media. The free market (and the trends in viewership) pretty well shows what news sources more accurately reflect the views of most of American society, and it isn't the liberal media.

No, trends in viewership show where people who watch TV or look to traditional media skew, not society as a whole.

Tons of demographics don't watch TV, or ever pick up a newspaper - they aren't reflected in that number at all... And that non-watching, non print demographic is growing larger.

 

[shagdrum]

he is betting that he can create those little right wing pockets that will keep those newspapers afloat and profitable for a short period of time.

Little right wing pockets? That is a gross underestimation.

Society is moving away from the liberal media because it doesn't reflect them and is not trustworthy. Murdoch established news sources that were (and are) trustworth, which is why they are growing. Most of society is center-right and that is being shown in the success or the new media over the MSM.

None of what you are saying in any way refutes what Murdoch said. All it attempts to do is marginalize and illogically discredit him...

 

[Calabrio]

spin spin spin.... drop a mistruth, then she dances around it.....
you just end up going around in circles with Foxpaws.
She can't possibly be doing this by accident.

 

[foxpaws]

Besides the question on seeing Russia from Alaska, what questions were leading, loaded or otherwise biased, and how were they so?

Unless you can provide specifics, then this is obviously merely an attempt to marginalize and smear...

Well, back to this - Zieg wanted a certain result - so he loaded the deck... so be it, he can.

It isn't a survey that means anything whatsoever, mostly because of the demo it was given to. Zieg was looking for sensationalism, he got it. What he didn't get was any sort of viable results. I know you guys often point at polls at being 'skewed', that is pretty much why I stay away from them. This poll is sort of text book skewed.

Mostly it is just funny that it has gotten any press whatsoever.

 

[shagdrum]

No, trends in viewership show where people who watch TV or look to traditional media skew, not society as a whole.

Actually, Fox News consistently beats out the other 24 hour news (with the same bias as the news on NBC, ABC and CBS)

Tons of demographics don't watch TV, or ever pick up a newspaper - they aren't reflected in that number at all... And that non-watching, non print demographic is growing larger.

and this somehow disproves what I said?

 

[foxpaws]

Little right wing pockets? That is a gross underestimation.

Society is moving away from the liberal media because it doesn't reflect them and is not trustworthy. Murdoch established news sources that were (and are) trustworth, which is why they are growing. Most of society is center-right and that is being shown in the success or the new media over the MSM.

None of what you are saying in any way refutes what Murdoch said. All it attempts to do is marginalize and illogically discredit him...

No, the society that watches TV is going to be right wing - the parts of society that don't watch TV, well, don't watch TV. Are they liberal - probably. That is the biggest reason that the 'right wing' TV sources are doing better. TV viewership is skewing, it isn't there quite yet, but it will be in a few years. I would imagine in the next 10 years you will be hearing about how right broadcast TV is - and much crying by the 9 or 10 people on the left who still watch broadcast TV.
The liberal TV is behind the times in this - and it is hurting them. They won't be successful in broadcast TV at all soon. It is becoming a media that doesn't appeal to liberal voters.

 

[shagdrum]

Well, back to this - Zieg wanted a certain result - so he loaded the deck... so be it, he can.

How?

It isn't a survey that means anything whatsoever, mostly because of the demo it was given to.

How? He wanted to find out why people voted for Obama and what those voters knew. So he had Zogby talk to Obama supporters. Nothing absurd about that demographic if that is what you are looking to examine.

Zieg was looking for sensationalism, he got it. What he didn't get was any sort of viable results. I know you guys often point at polls at being 'skewed', that is pretty much why I stay away from them. This poll is sort of text book skewed.

How is it skewed? Considering what was being examined, What makes this polls skewed?

You need to provide more then broad accusations. Specifics, and how they are relevant or your point is meaningless. Connect the dots; don't just hurl accusations.

 

[foxpaws]

Actually, Fox News consistently beats out the other 24 hour news (with the same bias as the news on NBC, ABC and CBS)

yes, because the left is watching less TV, and the right is continuing to watch TV... aggghhhh

and this somehow disproves what I said?

No, it proves that your argument that the country is skewing right can't be proved by viewership numbers on TV or newspaper readership. The left demographic is moving away from broadcast TV and newspapers. I think this is the last election where you will see so much left biased reporting on broadcast TV. Their demo is leaving for other media. Their TV/newspaper numbers will continue to drop while the rights numbers will continue to rise, because of the acceptance by the right that it is now OK to turn on TV - it reflects 'my' views....

 

[shagdrum]

No, the society that watches TV is going to be right wing - the parts of society that don't watch TV, well, don't watch TV. Are they liberal - probably. That is the biggest reason that the 'right wing' TV sources are doing better. TV viewership is skewing, it isn't there quite yet, but it will be in a few years. I would imagine in the next 10 years you will be hearing about how right broadcast TV is - and much crying by the 9 or 10 people on the left who still watch broadcast TV.
The liberal TV is behind the times in this - and it is hurting them. They won't be successful in broadcast TV at all soon. It is becoming a media that doesn't appeal to liberal voters.

Still doesn't refute what Murdoch said.

In fact, it goes against what you have said about the media making decisions based on what it's viewers want. They are "behind the times" most likely because of the reasons Murdoch listed.

And I am not so sure that the parts of news consumers that do watch TV are going to be right wing. Many of the right wing viewers have been disappointed in most of TV and newspaper media and have turned more and more to talk radio and the internet. I would say that those that watch TV more tend to be independent.

 

[shagdrum]

yes, because the left is watching less TV, and the right is continuing to watch TV

What evidence do you have the the left is watching less TV? Or is it just an assumption on your part?

No, it proves that your argument that the country is skewing right can't be proved by viewership numbers on TV or newspaper readership.

Only if you can prove that independants and liberals are moving away from TV and newspapers...

And, if we are talking about voting here, then we probably need to look at likely voters as well.

 

[foxpaws]

Still doesn't refute what Murdoch said.

In fact, it goes against what you have said about the media making decisions based on what it's viewers want. They are "behind the times" most likely because of the reasons Murdoch listed.

And I am not so sure that the parts of news consumers that do watch TV are going to be right wing. Many of the right wing viewers have been disappointed in most of TV and newspaper media and have turned more and more to talk radio and the internet. I would say that those that watch TV more tend to be independent.

No, the viewers are 'going' to be right wing - as in the future... as I stated before I think that this is the last election where we have left shewed broadcast TV.

No, right wing viewers now watch FOX - all of them - they aren't diluted, the numbers will be stronger there, but they are fading fast for the liberal media at the same time - critical mass will soon occur and some other 'major' network will eventually try to out fox FOX...

We will see on the 'independent' viewership - they are hard to nail down... and often really aren't 'independent', just not willing to really state where they stand....

Now, back to zieg's poll

Zogby Poll: Almost No Obama Voters Ace Election Test

Survey finds most Obama voters remembered negative coverage of McCain/Palin statements but struggled to correctly answer questions about coverage associated with Obama/Biden

He is right - but because of the survey it makes it appear that Obama voters were the only ones that wouldn't 'ace' the test - I believe no average voter would 'ace' the test - but, because no one but Obama voters were asked the questions we will never know...

I actually dont' quite understand his logic in doing this poll this way. It of course discredits the media, but it also makes it looks like only Obama voters were swayed by the media. Wouldn't it have been better to show all voters were swayed by the media?

Or did he just want to make it look like Obama voters were sheep... hard to say...