How the media got Obama elected

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

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

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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

What wasn't true as reported in the poll? The bit about Sarah Palin seeing Alaska from her house? EATA: Even if the points about Obama/Biden are debatable, it seems that people should have been able to associate the claim with a candidate.

I don't think that website is genius or anything and I'm not trying
to promote Zogby polling, but I don't think the info in the poll questions is as inaccurate/problematic as you seem to suggest..

I'm using wikipedia for ease:

Obama ran for State Senator when Alice Palmer decided to run for Congress in a 1995 special election, and he received her endorsement.[2] After finishing third in the primary, which was won by Jesse Jackson, Jr., Palmer returned to request that Obama drop out of the race and let her run again for the seat.[3] Obama declined, and Palmer decided to run against him. Prior to the primary, Obama challenged the validity of ballot petition signatures for his opponents, resulting in their exclusion from the ballot and allowing him to run unopposed in the primary.[2][4] Obama won the heavily Democratic 13th district by a large margin.[4] He was easily reelected in 1998, and again in 2002 (after redistricting to span Chicago lakefront neighborhoods from the Gold Coast south to South Chicago).[2][5]

The coal industry comment seems to pull from multiple sources and maybe unfairly out of context but it's hard to say that he didn't put that idea out there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwBbl6RoIs (the label makes me laugh)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxnT5tHVIo

ETA: here's Ayer's acknowledging Obama having a reception in his home when he started his state career: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/S...6251086&page=2

I think the issue isn't that the media needed to be hammering the weak, crappy stories about Obama and Biden necessarily, but if you are going to hammer McCain about his houses and Palin about whatever, and it's going to run through multiple news cycles, it's somewhat perplexing that equally potentially inflammatory stories about Obama and Biden didn't get the same play in the mainstream press, especially from the big networks in TV coverage. I think there are instances that actually gave more coverage of the Obama/Biden response to an issue being raised than there ever was to the original issue. The news would essentially be Obama/Biden campaign points. The coal issue may be a good case in point. Wouldn't an unbiased press been willing to fully report the economic implications of Obama's proposed energy policies?

We can talk about the validity of the reasons why, but what this maybe crappy poll and website was trying to point out was that there may have been an imbalance in the message that got out.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't think the info in the poll questions is as inaccurate/problematic as you seem to suggest..

We can talk about the validity of the reasons why, but what this maybe crappy poll and website was trying to point out was that there may have been an imbalance in the message that got out.

It's all sensationalism, and I for one am tired of it. In my previous post, I noted that this nonsense happened on both sides. Maybe the media played a role in it, maybe it didn't. It's a moo point now. Obama won by a virtual landslide.

But I've noticed that you like to have the last word when we're discussing a topic. I'll let you have that, since it's obviously more important to you than it is to me.

By the way? Still not changing my signature.