Talk about NYT spin

[oldanforgotten]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

I'm not sure about some people, but frankly, there's levels of spin, and then there is outright intelligence insulting spin.

This and Ilvane's piece covering health care using only numbers provided by Hillary's own health care advisor (interestingly enough, the article neglected to mention that he was, as though he was a nuetral source), makes you really begin to wonder.

Since when did the NYT drop off the list of endorsing Mrs Clinton and all of a sudden start outright editorial campaigning for her?
________
CHILD HEALTH ADVICE (http://www.health-forums.org/child-health/)

[bluesmith]

At least Kristoff and especially Dowd are hitting her hard on the editorial page, and pumping up Obama. What they've written in the last week really knocks the winds out of their sails and if you read the comments to the pieces you'll that the winds in the Democratic party are really starting to turn against her. I predict that the NYT could very well change its endorsement...the tighter she hangs on to this, the worse she looks.

For reference:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/opinion/07kristof.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06dowd.html

[TheEschaton]

Errrr, the numbers in that article are true though. Hillary, like her husband Bill, have solidified their support among under-educated people making less than $50k a year, Obama has solidified his support amongst people who are highly educated and make more than $150k. That's just a fact.

The truth of the matter is, the middle and lower middle class, and the poor, have no time for hope, they need help putting food on the table day to day. Hillary is their choice. White male, black male, black woman, white woman, if they make less than a certain amount of money, they are more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Paul Begala (admittedly a former Clinton advisor) said the other day on CNN that the media has been constructing this myth - that Democratic voters are split on race, or on gender,, when the reality is the major division in the party is based on class. He then accused everyone on the CNN set of not recognizing this because "none of you guys know anyone who makes less than $50k a year."

[Ilvane]

My professor in class last night was talking about bias, and how everyone has it, it's inherently something we can't avoid. It comes in anything we do, from in my case, research case studies, or experiments on theories..or in anything.

I personally think the media has this rock star thing going with Obama, because that's who they want to see. You hear the questions he gets and wonder why they are so soft..when they attack Hillary Clinton...why he gets 20 minutes of speech shown and she gets 7..etc..

It's a pain, but I guess we have to sift through what is real fact and what is biased opinion with no basis in fact, huh?

Angela

[oldanforgotten]

Errrr, the numbers in that article are true though. Hillary, like her husband Bill, have solidified their support among under-educated people making less than $50k a year, Obama has solidified his support amongst people who are highly educated and make more than $150k. That's just a fact.

The truth of the matter is, the middle and lower middle class, and the poor, have no time for hope, they need help putting food on the table day to day. Hillary is their choice. White male, black male, black woman, white woman, if they make less than a certain amount of money, they are more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Paul Begala (admittedly a former Clinton advisor) said the other day on CNN that the media has been constructing this myth - that Democratic voters are split on race, or on gender,, when the reality is the major division in the party is based on class. He then accused everyone on the CNN set of not recognizing this because "none of you guys know anyone who makes less than $50k a year."

That is not in dispute. The fact of the matter is that people with high school or less are falling into the Clinton camp, and under 50k are falling into the Clinton camp, while college educated people are leaning Obama, and people making over 100k a year are leaning Obama.

The dispute is the wording used to describe the voters, the candidates, and the general spin on what it means. Someone else could just as easily spin this by saying "those uneducated poor people probably don't watch TV and have no idea what the real world is like, and the only name they know is Clinton", but that'd be equally derisive spin.
________
MAZDA M PLATFORM (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_M_platform)

[oldanforgotten]

My professor in class last night was talking about bias, and how everyone has it, it's inherently something we can't avoid. It comes in anything we do, from in my case, research case studies, or experiments on theories..or in anything.

I personally think the media has this rock star thing going with Obama, because that's who they want to see. You hear the questions he gets and wonder why they are so soft..when they attack Hillary Clinton...why he gets 20 minutes of speech shown and she gets 7..etc..

It's a pain, but I guess we have to sift through what is real fact and what is biased opinion with no basis in fact, huh?

Angela

The bias of a study cannot be avoided. But there is a huge difference between bias/spin, and loss of factual integrity and objectivity. There is reader bias as well in many cases, and some people have a stance, and will only read those things that agree with their stance, using that as fact.

As for the media coverage, its based entirely off of your bias. You will always think your candidate needs to be shown more, and in a positive light, and that anything controversial is some sort of travesty against your dear saintly choice.
________
Srx250 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_SRX250)

[Latrinsorm]

Yeah I wonder why Obama (who's been compared favorably with JFK) has his speeches shown more often. It's a real mystery.

[TheEschaton]

That is not in dispute. The fact of the matter is that people with high school or less are falling into the Clinton camp, and under 50k are falling into the Clinton camp, while college educated people are leaning Obama, and people making over 100k a year are leaning Obama.

The dispute is the wording used to describe the voters, the candidates, and the general spin on what it means. Someone else could just as easily spin this by saying "those uneducated poor people probably don't watch TV and have no idea what the real world is like, and the only name they know is Clinton", but that'd be equally derisive spin.

It's an Op/Ed, and the guy is obviously a Clinton supporter. It is derisive, I suppose, if you think being compared to a Whole Foods shopper is an insult. The basic point of the article is that Whole Food shoppers have the luxury of hope.

[oldanforgotten]

Yeah I wonder why Obama (who's been compared favorably with JFK) has his speeches shown more often. It's a real mystery.

The fact that people want to see more of him may be the reason. Or that he is the better speaker that draws better ratings. Or that everyone already knows who Clinton is, and wants to know more about the new guy.
________
Fuck (http://www.fucktube.com/)

[Ilvane]

It shouldn't matter who draws better ratings! It's serious political race, not a popularity contest..though you wouldn't know by the way some people act about it.

Angela

[Alfster]

I'm not voting for Hillary because she's fugly as shit.

Who am I kidding, I'm to lazy to vote. I wont vote for anyone!

[oldanforgotten]

It's an Op/Ed, and the guy is obviously a Clinton supporter. It is derisive, I suppose, if you think being compared to a Whole Foods shopper is an insult. The basic point of the article is that Whole Food shoppers have the luxury of hope.

To insinuate that "hope" is a luxury goes against the very concept of the notion of hope itself, and is the very center of how stupid and bigoted the analogy from the article is.

More free time is a luxury that wealthier people tend to have more of. Now, let me take that general truth, and extrapolate it like the author.

More general awareness of news is a luxury that wealthier people have. Some people struggling to make ends meet tend to have less time to actually read stances and know who they are voting for than wealthier people, so they, like their lack of education, are making a decision that is commensurate with their lack of education, because they vote more often based on name recognition and party than others.

That is basically the exact type of extrapolation of general fact into opinionated and straight out bullshit the author used, and is just as valid (in that it is not valid at all).
________
Vaporizors (http://vaporizer.org/)

[CrystalTears]

So basically the poor and dumb people are voting for Hillary? :lol:

[oldanforgotten]

So basically the poor and dumb people are voting for Hillary? :lol:

That would be the counterpoint to the NYT article, which portrays them as the only ones suited to know what the people need. For the record, both stances are utter bullshit.
________
Extreme Q Vaporizer (http://www.vaporshop.com/extreme-q-vaporizer.html)

[Gan]

So basically the poor and dumb people are voting for Hillary? :lol:

LOL

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking.

[Parkbandit]

It shouldn't matter who draws better ratings! It's serious political race, not a popularity contest..though you wouldn't know by the way some people act about it.

Angela


Since when is a political race NOT a popularity contest? It's ALWAYS about popularity and very rarely about actual substance.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Hillary, like her husband Bill, have solidified their support among under-educated people making less than $50k a year, Obama has solidified his support amongst people who are highly educated and make more than $150k. That's just a fact.

Does under-educated mean stupid, just curious. My Dad only has a 10th grade education, but I'd call him far from "under-educated".

[Arkans]

I know of complete idiots that graduated from college.

I also know people that could barely get through school that have a shit load of intellect. Schooling isn't the only indicator of how clever somebody is.

- Arkans

[TheEschaton]

Intellect isn't what's being measured, the amount of formal education you've gotten is.

[bluesmith]

Most of the established media is in the Clinton camp, because they relationships with them and their advisors and most of their advisers...the media loves to feel as if they're in the know, and yet they're just as confused by what is happening with the Obama mov't as the Clintons are.

The tail is wagging the dog: They're afraid of a movement that is unmediated by them, hence their coverage of Obama.

They can't tell what the real deal is when they see it. They've forgotten what a democracy is all about.

[BigWorm]

You say that like they ever knew what democracy was all about.

[The Ponzzz]

Every time I see this thread I think of meatspin. :(

[CrystalTears]

Every time I see this thread I think of meatspin. :(
You know how I know you're gay...

[The Ponzzz]

You know how I know you're gay...

:rofl:

[Keller]

It shouldn't matter who draws better ratings! It's serious political race, not a popularity contest..though you wouldn't know by the way some people act about it.

Angela

You mean like the people who, in the face of overwhelming rational argument against her political positions, retreat from actual discourse and hide behind the excuse, "it's my opinion"?

Seriously, I can't begin to articulate how fucking funny that is coming from you.