NationStates Jolt Archive

Is your political opinion based on facts or have you been influenced?

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/04.09.08.Summer.Campaign.pdf

bump

So, that document essentially stated that anyone who isn't the incredibly biased Fox News recognizes that Kerry would be a better president than Bush?

Damning.

It's based on facts--I try to avoid the mainstream television media as much as possible. They never do indepth news coverage because it doesn't play well on tv, and they don't do nuance because it takes more than two minutes to show any sort of detail, and two minutes is about the average length of a story on CNN, FNC, MSNBC, etc. Let's face it--television news coverage is about the worst place to get news, except perhaps for AM radio "news analysis."

As an objective observer, everything about america in the media and on television seems biased. Fox news is hysterically right wing, but your advertising "hardsell" is an atrocious travesty. im surprised you dont riot in front of TV studios.
The News channel syou watch seem to define your political opinion. Thus, they are biased.

So, that document essentially stated that anyone who isn't the incredibly biased Fox News recognizes that Kerry would be a better president than Bush?

Damning.
Actually, that article proved that Fox wasn't favoring Bush that much. Actually, Bush recieved the same kind of coverage from them as he did any other Network. However, Kerry received more bad coverage than normal. Thus, it would suggest to me that Fox simply didn't ignore everything Kerry did wrong, and actually pointed it out, just as it was doing to Bush.

And by the way, a news network hardly counts as a credible source, in my opinion. They basically say what will sell. And bad news sells.

Actually, that article proved that Fox wasn't favoring Bush that much. Actually, Bush recieved the same kind of coverage from them as he did any other Network. However, Kerry received more bad coverage than normal. Thus, it would suggest to me that Fox simply didn't ignore everything Kerry did wrong, and actually pointed it out, just as it was doing to Bush.

And by the way, a news network hardly counts as a credible source, in my opinion. They basically say what will sell. And bad news sells.
Well, I didn't think that the article proved much of anything. It made an argument for what you describe, but it's not one I found to be particularly convincing, especially when compared to studies done by PIPA about voter attitudes and media coverage.

Well, I didn't think that the article proved much of anything.
And I would have to agree with you, the article simply stated some statistics, which alone indicate nothing other than what they state they indicate, ie that Bush was mentioned negatively/positively X amount of times by '....' and Kerry was mentioned negatively/postively X amount of times by '....' distributed like this (breakdowns of media etc). Whatever possible implications/causes/etc might be drawn from the facts presented are not discussed in the article, much less any particular possible implication/cause etc proved...

What are you supposed to cover as negative with a candidate anyway. Kerry said this which is bad? Well thats personal opinion. If you tell me how you can cover a candidate and blame him for any policy in the country. And dont say you can cover flip flopping for 50% of the stories.

lso on the other hand what do you call problems in Iraq. If a soldier dies is it pro or anti Bush? Or it may not be included. What has the Bush administration done in the last 6 months? Only the Health Care bill. On the other hand, Rumsfeld with "quagmire" the 9/11 Commision. Halibuton and its problems. The economy. Just the way things have been going its kind of hard to present a lot of posative stories.

However, I agree that deciding your vote by TV news is very stupid.