Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
I disagree. Other than the Reverend Wright stuff, I don't think most Obama stuff got much actually critical coverage even in the primary by the traditional media, to the point that the Clinton folks were pretty angry about it. I also think Biden got off really lightly considering how many ridiculous things he said during the campaign. If you know about them, it might be a reflection of your willingness to watch Fox or your reading on the internet.
It may be possible to justify extra scrutiny of Palin from her nomination onward for the reason you suggest. But it doesn't really explain why there was so little coverage of any of her actual governance. I think people know troopergate, Wasilla rape kits, and maybe interest in removing books from the Wasilla. They also know the fact checking on the Bridge to Nowhere story. Can anyone report any other action by Palin in her elective history? Does that make sense if it's an unbiased pressed?
We need to know about her husband's flirtation with the Alaska Party and hear critics from the lower 48 of her Predator Control programs, but nothing about successful programs that contributed to her initially high approval ratings in Alaska?
Is it really reasonable to just assume that there weren't any?
|
Selection bias at its worst - what do we know about Obama's 'governance' as a Senator? As a State Senator? How much of this was produced by the media?
Modern political campaigns are dominated by negativity, to the point where it's "who is the least bad?" on some level. We don't remember "good" things - we note bad. It's classic selection bias.
Threaded Mode
