How the media got Obama elected
 

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

Very interesting, I didn't know some of the stuff about Obama/Biden myself.

One thing that struck me as incorrect off the bat...I didn't think Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism. If they're talking about the '88 Presidential campaign, I thought he stopped the campaign because of the aneurysm.

ETA: This type of stuff strikes me as being as ridiculous as the "Bush stole the election" criticisms that DS posted above. Both are, in my opinion, Monday Morning Quarterbacking at their worst.

There isn't a "roll eyes" smiley big enough for this one - seriously?

But plagiarism and aneurysm rhyme, silly, so it MUST be the same thing.

You didn't know it because it's not true.

I feel like this election from the media's end, more so than any other previous, involved a lot of "fact-checking," so if rumors ran rampant, it wasn't because of the media. It was a lot of people wanting to believe stupid stuff. This is true on both sides.

I see you've been reading the columnists in our newspaper. :p

If you walked down the street and asked 20 random people two questions:

1.) Which candidate spent $150,000 on clothes?

2.) Who is Nancy Pelosi?

(or any other combination of meaningless question vs. an important one) I guarantee that at least half of the people could answer the first question and not the second.

The point is, all of the people who answer #1 correctly won't be Democrats and all of the people who answer #2 correctly won't be Republicans.

I truly believe that the reason Palin was pointed at more frequently in this campaign is because she was McCain's choice. Not ours. Obama was running for president himself, and he made it to the top through votes. Palin was seen as a joke from day one, if only because nobody knew who she was, and McCain's decision was seen as one to simply get votes from women. And then on day two, all hell broke loose with the news of her pregnant daughter.

All four candidates fumbled, but the ones that were hit harder were Palin and Biden. And no one can sit here and say that Palin didn't dig her own grave. She couldn't even give Katie Couric the name of a newspaper or magazine she reads.

Basically, there are no conclusions to be reached from this website, and it has nothing to do with why Obama won the election. There were questions like "Who said that there were 57 states?" but nothing asking, "Where does Obama stand on the economic crisis plaguing the country?" And there will always be people who vote for candidates for ridiculous reasons, there's no getting around that. This year, it was because Obama was black, or because McCain was old. In four years, people might like the hairstyle of one of the presidential candidates... who knows!

If you're going to try and make an accusation like "The media is the reason Obama won," you at least need a more extensive interview process than asking 10 people random questions that have nothing to do with actual campaign policies and ideas.

Yeah, all those y/isms.. who can keep em straight?

Here you go:

http://www.galeon.com/mikeln/img/rolleyes.gif

Meanwhile, I thought that Newsweek's post-election article on the campaigns was interesting.

Far from perfect: www.howobamagotelected.com/
 

Several problems have been reported about both site and survey:
Take your pick of which link(s) to look at:
Zogby Engages in Apparent Push Polling for Right-Wing Website :
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/...h-polling.html

An Interview with John Ziegler on the Zogby "Push Poll" :
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/...-on-zogby.html

Zogby’s Misleading Poll of Obama Voters:
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/zogb...ma-voters-459/

Zogby won’t duplicate Obama poll:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15829.html

Somewhat on topic - this is strictly a personal observation from my local standpoint, but I find it interesting and wonder how the rest of the nation is reporting.

I'm curious about the news coverage (daily paper) in your parts of the country regarding the economy. For the months leading up to the election, my paper, The Houston Chronicle, had the falling stock market on the front page, complete with pictures of stockbrokers with their hands over their faces, lamenting the end of the world. It was DOOM and GLOOM every day!!

It is surmised by many pundits that a poor economy helps democrats in the election.

So, now it is post election, and what kind of reporting is done regarding the stock market? There are small boxes that show the declines on the front page with - "story continued in section D (the business section)."

So, even though the market is lower than before, it is now back section news???

Are they trying to put the genie back in the box?!? Unfortunately, it may be too late!

Is this media manipulation?

I don't get any hard-copy papers, so to speak, as I read the local and national news online. But, it seems to me that it has still been front-page news in my area. I feel like I see the same picture every day, of the stockbroker with his hands on his forehead in a state of extreme duress. It's like they keep the same pose, just switch out the person.

From what I seen in my local papers, it could just be yours.
Mine have had stories about the stock market/economy on front page on a rather (depressing) regular basis.

My local paper "The Washington Post" still features articles in the A section within the first 5 pages regarding the economy along with those soon to be classic images of stockbrokers with their head in their hands or something to that effect.