My crap -- not your crap. It might be political, social, or personal. If you don't like it, leave. Comment if you want. I might reply or I might not, but I do read them.
This has to include a heavy dose of Fox News. Outside of them, I haven't seen ANY positive coverage of Bachmann and Palin (not that they necessarily deserve very much, mind you).
I probably should have provided some backup to this figure. Here is the original article. It references the full report.While undoubtedly it included Fox News, it does not appear that Fox is included at an excessive level. It looks like they covered a wide range of outlets including news and blogs.Here is what they say:"In combination, the two research methods assess coverage across more than 11,500 news media outlets each day. A separate analysis also tracks the level of discussion and tone across hundreds of thousands of blogs. The study covers the 23 weeks from May 2, when candidates began to announce, to October 9, one week ago—that first phase of what might be called The Media Primary."More details are given in the whole report.
You and the Heathen Republican should get together and just chart the hell out of each other. Mark Twain must be turning over in his grave, and he has already done that several times, so his skeleton is probably really disheveled.
It would be no contest. Heathen would dishevel the hell out of me.
I saw this but I don't need a chart to know it's true. I do not have cable, except for basic, so have to rely on ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR and PBS. Not only are these outfits, including PBS sometimes and NPR much of the time, negative about Obama, they completely slant their coverage and more often than not feature Republicans in their news coverage and on their talk shows. Most insidious of all, when a Republican fabricates their facts, nobody bothers to call them on it. Never.I like charts and graphs because numbers and percentages are Greek to me. I need the visual aids, so keep 'em up.
I'm skeptical. if blogger opinions were factored in it's hard to understand how Bachmann, Palin and Santorum got so much neutral and so little negative coverage. Gingrich got more negative coverage than Palin and Santorum, but managed 50 percent neutral?I think the high negative coverage of Obama figures, the way things went most of this year, but not such a large neutral and small positive percentage.
@John"You and the Heathen Republican should get together and just chart the hell out of each other."I produce original charts; Jerry borrows them from others. Show some respect, John.
Jerry, 11,500 media outlets and hundreds of thousands of blog is way too large. I would much rather see a study of the larger mainstream media outlets; ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, The Washington Post, etc.. If it was just restricted to these giants, I doubt seriously if you'd find that Bahmann and Palin had more positive than negative coverage. Hell, dude, I've only seen one positive story EVER on Palin (a piece that somebody from the Atlantic did on her). And even that one was couched.
Lesley Parsley and I definitely live in different universes. PBS with a conservative bias? Wow.
Sorry, Heathen, I do respect Jerry's efficiency, even if I don't always show it.
Why no chart showing which candidates got the most from Wall Street ? Why no chart showing which candidates received the largest contribution per Wall Street donor ?Maybe cause President Obama tops both lists ?
Be my guest. Chart away, witless.This post happens to be about the media, not Wall Street.
You are a Peace Patroller, also known as an anti-war liberal or neo-hippie. You believe in putting an end to American imperial conquest, stopping wars that have already been lost, and supporting our troops by bringing them home.
Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com