Propaganda, or solid journalism?

[printdust]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/survey-surprising-finding-tea-party-less-popular-atheists-160220531.html

Skewed at best considering 3 percent on average is the number of atheists or Muslims in the U.S. population. Plus I find it amazing that this was built on something that was put together in 2006 or 2007 and quite honestly, overlooked the Congressional mid-term elections.

 

[deskslave]

You realize that it's comparing the popularity of the Tea Party with the popularity of Muslims and atheists, not comparing the actual populations of each group?

And the survey was done this year. It was first done several years ago, yes. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it "overlooked" the mid-terms.

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer.

 

[printdust]

Yeah, well whatever. Seems as though it comes at a time that the propaganda machine needs to get rolling in Obamanation. And what do we have here? JUST IN TIME!

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41733




It’s an old political ploy called guilt-by-association.

The Democratic National Committee has a new video out that claims GOP members of Congress and the growing Republican presidential field “embrace extreme tea party policies.”


So onward DNC, DailyKos, Huffington and NY Times!
Onward MSNBC, on CBS, on ABC!

As the article says, though:

Sometimes it works.

More often it backfires.

 

[CarltonBanks]

They can keep talking about how unpopular the Tea Party is, all the way through the next election cycle when Obama is defeated and the R's control the house and senate. Then they can say, "But, they aren't POPULAR!"

 

[Azrael]

It seems very strange to link to a story about a column without linking to the column itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html

 

[printdust]

Psst, Azrael: That's what the blue link was within the original link. Sorry if I had to make you work harder to find it. I thought it was, you know, obvious where to find it.

 

[Azrael]

Your comments were based on the Yahoo story, not the original Times opinion piece.

 

[deskslave]

The original Times piece (a) came from the evil New York Times and (b) contained facts that were inconvenient to the presupposed conclusions he had drawn.

 

[Azrael]

So this thread is itself an act of camouflaged propaganda? Old Joe Stalin would be proud.

 

[printdust]

Your comments were based on the Yahoo story, not the original Times opinion piece.

Which was spun quite nicely by an Obama servant.