1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Liberal media (or not)

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Inky_Wretch, Oct 17, 2011.

  1. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Obama has gotten more "negative" coverage than any GOP candidates.


    YGBFKM Guest

    The president always gets more negative AND positive coverage given the fact he gets so much coverage. This is not breaking news.
  3. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    It is breaking news to Sarah Palin:

  4. Mystery Meat II

    Mystery Meat II Well-Known Member

    whereas the only thing in sarah palin's back pocket is glen rice.
  5. sportbook

    sportbook Member

    Unemployment, the economy, the national debt, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, the budget.It’s hard to make positive articles out of that.
  6. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    And of course, she cites no sources as to that 90 percent.
  7. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    Interesting that they compared current coverage with that from his first 100 days. There was such an intense and protracted celebration when Obama was elected -- there were freakin' comic books that made him into a superhero -- that he was never going to live up to his billing. All that said, the trouble with this sort of survey is this: Who's to say the coverage of Obama, while interpreted as largely negative, wouldn't be much worse if he didn't have the support of the media?

    Palin was right on one point: Obama has an unfair advantage. It's not that the media favors him, though. It's that the Republican Party doesn't have anyone who's electable.
  8. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    edited for accuracy
  9. finishthehat

    finishthehat Active Member

    Solyndra and Fast and Furious? You may be proving the point about the media drumming up mountains out of Obama molehills. Kind of like they didn't do when a federal agency in the Bush administration was proven to be giving away mineral rights for coke and hookers.
  10. Magic In The Night

    Magic In The Night Active Member

    So let me see if I interpret this correctly: When it is proven that Obama is getting more negative coverage than the GOP presidents, your argument is that he IS getting positive coverage because otherwise the coverage would have been WAY MORE negative? Just checking.
  11. CarltonBanks

    CarltonBanks New Member

    The problem is that the MSM has been so in the tank for Obama that their credibility is gone. Now a few reporters are working to actually cover these scandals impartially and they get screamed at in the White House.

    Fact of the matter is this...Obama has been a miserable failure. The media knows it has tied its credibility to a fiasco of a president, and they are trying to find some way out of the mess they created by being so pro-Obama it is sickening.

    So Solyndra and Fast and Furious are "Obama molehills" huh? You just refuse to believe Obama is anything less than Christ on Earth. The guy is a crook and a liar. He is a mess of a president and is going to get his ass spanked in Nov. of next year. You are just going to have to come to terms with it sooner or later.
  12. Uncle.Ruckus

    Uncle.Ruckus Guest

    The GOP frontrunner is Herman Cain. The guy who should be the frontrunner can't get out of the high 20s among teabaggers.

    Obama's scared shitless, I'm sure.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page