Guy Chamberlin

They taught me to read the whole article, digest the context, and appreciate the conclusions drawn by the authors themselves. To my original point: initial press coverage of McCain, and it appears Palin, was generally positive until it became less so, driven by the candidate's actions and polling sentiment rather than media bias. See the boldfaced section for a handy summation that puts your bar graph and "whopping difference" comment in perspective. Much of the increased attention for McCain derived from actions by the senator himself, actions that, in the end, generated mostly negative assessments. In many ways, the arc of the media narrative during this phase of the 2008 general election might be best described as a drama in which John McCain has acted and Barack Obama has reacted. As for Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, her coverage had an up and down trajectory, moving from quite positive, to very negative, to more mixed. What drove that tone toward a more unfavorable light was probing her public record and her encounters with the press. Little of her trouble came from coverage of her personal traits or family issues. In the end, she also received less than half the coverage of either presidential nominee, though about triple that of her vice presidential counterpart, Joe Biden. The findings suggest that, in the end, Palin’s portrayal in the press was not the major factor hurting McCain. Her coverage, while tilting negative, was far more positive than her running mate’s. These are some of the findings of the study, which examined 2,412 campaign stories from 48 news outlets, during six critical weeks of the general election phase from the end of the conventions through the final presidential debate. Tone was examined on a subset of this sample, 857 stories from 43 outlets, those campaign stories that were focused on one of the candidates. Marion Just of Wellesley College served as a consultant on the study. The Project is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Among the findings: Coverage of Obama began in the negative after the conventions, but the tone switched with the changing direction of the polls. The most positive stories about him were those that were most political—the ones focused on polling, the electoral map, and tactics. For McCain, coverage began positively, but turned sharply negative with McCain’s reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bolder steps to try and reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened. Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obama’s character did hurt Obama’s media coverage, but McCain’s was even more negative. Coverage of Palin, in the end, was more negative than positive. In all, 39% of Palin stories carried a negative tone, while 28% were positive, and 33% were neutral. Contrary to what some suggested, little of the coverage was about Palin’s personal life (5%). Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden was nearly the invisible man. His had just one large moment, the vice presidential debate, which also offered his only positive or neutral contribution. Aside from that week, the limited coverage he did receive was far more negative than Palin’s, and nearly as negative as McCain’s. The economy was hardly a singular lens through which the media perceived the race. Though it was the No. 1 campaign topic overall, five out of the six weeks other topics were bigger, and in the end it accounted for not much more of the campaign newshole (18%) than assessments of the candidates in the four debates (17%). Horse race reporting, once again, made up the majority of coverage, but less so than earlier in the contest or than in previous elections. Since the conventions ended, 53% of the newshole studied has focused on political matters, particularly tactics, strategy and polling. That is more than twice as much as the coverage focused on policy (20%). This focus on tactics and horse race grew in the last three weeks as both campaigns became more negative in their rhetoric. Tone is an elusive and yet unavoidable question when examining the role of the news media. Who got better coverage, and why? To examine tone, the Project takes a particularly cautious and conservative approach. Unlike some researchers, we examine not just whether assertions in stories are positive or negative, but also whether they are inherently neutral. This, we believe, provides a much clearer and fairer sense of the tone of coverage than ignoring those balanced or mixed evaluations. Second, we do not simply tally up all the evaluative assertions in stories and compile them into a single pile to measure. Journalists and audiences think about press coverage in stories or segments. They ask themselves, is this story positive or negative or neutral? Hence the Project measures coverage by story, and for a story to be deemed as having a negative or positive tone, it must be clearly so, not a close call: for example, the negative assertions in a story must outweigh positive assertions by a margin of at least 1.5 to 1 for that story to be deemed negative. One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? The data do not provide conclusive answers. They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions. Obama’s coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before. Obama’s numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain’s numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore. What the findings also reveal is the reinforcing—rather than press-generated—effects of media. We see a repeating pattern here in which the press first offers a stenographic account of candidate rhetoric and behavior, while also on the watch for misstatements and gaffes. Then, in a secondary reaction, it measures the political impact of what it has reported. This is magnified in particular during presidential races by the prevalence of polling and especially daily tracking. While this echo effect exists in all press coverage, it is far more intense in presidential elections, with the explosion of daily tracking polls, state polls, poll aggregation sites and the 24-hour cable debate over their implications. Even coverage of the candidate’s policy positions and rhetoric, our reading of these stories suggest, was tied to horse race and took on its cast. Pagination

Yes. It's a very thorough and well-considered dive. If you bothered to read it, you'd come away knowing that initial coverage of Obama was more negative, but became more positive as he rose in the polls. Initial coverage of McCain was more positive, but became more negative with his responses to the ongoing economic crisis. The negative stats you cite are almost entirely from the period from the conventions through the last debates, and reflect what Pew analysts call "horse race" metrics: positive and negative coverage linked to who is perceived as the front-runner and who is falling behind as cited by the polls, not opinions. It looks like I was wrong about Sarah Palin tainting the coverage of McCain. According to this helpful link you provided, Sarah Palin enjoyed more positive media coverage than negative, and compiled far more positive coverage than Joe Biden, who was rarely covered at all. Funny how you can read this kind of deep contextual dive and come away with "whopping difference." But I'm guessing your mind was already made up. I was of course responding to your post about the press loving McCain until he ran for President, and then hating him. While you can't attach numbers to that, the anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.

McCain was well-liked by the press during his Presidential campaign, and enjoyed friendly relations that extended to The Daily Show and Saturday Night Live. Mike Huckabee, too The media had pretty good relations with Rudy Guliani back then. I don't think they ever warmed up to Mitt Romney, The same press gently elevated Barack Obama at the expense of Hillary Clinton. They really didn't care for the Clinton circus. If you'll recall, the rightwing media never liked John McCain and was agitating for anyone else. McCain lost a lot of respect from most intelligent people when he chose Sarah Palin. By and large, did the national media prefer Barack Obama over McCain/Palin, swayed by the historical importance of the U.S. electing its first Black president? Sure. Why not?

That still leaves over 150 Republicans in House and Senate who voted to validate Trump's fraudulent claims. They are exactly as complicit as the mob that ignored the rule of law in order to placate an insane President.

fwiw.....investigative journalists have painstakingly chronicled Donald Trump's dishonesty and debunked untold conspiracy theories, and it hasn't mattered a lick to the millions of people who prefer to believe the manufactured myths.

For 40 years, Donald Trump got all the coverage he wanted from mainstream media because he was a spotlight whore and the media considered him a good albeit lightweight story. When he launched his birther takedown of Barack Obama in 2011, the mainstream media gave him far more positive attention than he deserved. When he segued to a Presidential run in 2015, they continued to give him far more coverage than any other candidate, precisely because he was a celebrity. I think the media turned on Trump only when they realized the narcissistic jackhole would be making decisions that affected everyone's lives.

What's happened in the last 20 years has been a profit model that replaces expensive boots on the ground reporting with relatively cheap talking heads. Competing 24/7 news channels changed everything. Some of that's on us. We really do consume the Good Guy/Bad Guy s#!t. But that's cable television. Forget about it. There's been plenty of outstanding reporting going on in print publications and their digital channels, and frankly Twitter out-reported CNN, MSNBC, and FOX all day Wednesday. It's a bit chaotic at the moment, but if you avoid the temptation to post breaking news before vetting it, there's a lot of truth out there.

I've been a journalist. Went to the J-School at UNL. Journalism 101 is that you get multiple sides to a story from the most authoritative source who will talk to you. Because these sources are so valuable, you can't afford to piss them off by willfully misrepresenting them. Once you have their side of the story, you vet the claims through research, sometimes consulting less-partisan experts on the given subject. When a passionate quote doesn't align with a verifiable fact, you're obliged to report it. There may be two sides to a story, but that doesn't mean they are equal. That's why you're a reporter, not a stenographer. Journalists tend to be well-educated, genuinely curious, and obsessed with getting inside information. If a majority of people in this profession lean in one direction, chances are it's closer to the truth.

The problem is people who believe that Rachel Maddow is the left's equivalent to Sean Hannity. The left's equivalent to Sean Hannity is a bi-polar street prophet raging on a Berkeley street corner. When it comes to extremism, the far right has a far more mainstream voice than the far left. If you've ever spent any time with the far left, you know they loath Maddow and MSNBC. What we're calling the more mainstream right is a lot farther right than it used to be, and today's mainstream Democrats could have passed themselves off as Republicans in decades past. If we're talking straight up factual reporting, the facts are biased towards the liberal POV in most cases. That millions of Americans believe the stolen election conspiracy theory suggest rightwing media still prevails without the facts. Scary s#!t. Bias has always been there, but Trump really ups the ante. There are so many reasons to hate and distrust this President, and the most damning evidence is coming from former supporters who confirm his dangerous incompetence. So the anti-Trump "bias" is shared by people with the best inside information, but half of them don't say anything in public to protect themselves and their political affiliation. In two weeks the Presidents enablers will magically transform into people with grave reservations about Donald Trump. They will translate those grave reservations into book deals, and go on liberal media to promote them. Does the mainstream media simultaneously protect Biden? Perhaps more than good journalists should? Yeah. They probably do. Proceed with caution.

This is just bulls#!t. You're projecting. Let's call them doctors who appeared on TV. Not TV doctors. Medical experts. Fauci and others had hoped warm summer temperatures would slow the virus, but warned that relaxed protocols and increased gatherings could increase cases. The latter turned out to be true. Zero "TV doctors" were okay with the mass gathering of protestors in terms of coronavirus spread. Newscasters and political commentators may not have chastised the protestors to your liking, but the medical experts did not issue moral loopholes like you're suggesting. Everyone girded for a wave of COVID cases, but it turned out the BLM protestors generally wore masks and there was no traceable spike. The same cannot be said for Sturgis, where 250,000 folks gathered shoulder to shoulder to prove that COVID was bulls#!t and masks unnecessary. Most experts on communicable diseases have studied the situation very closely and concluded that indoor restaurants are highly problematic. They don't want to shut them down, and in fact advised on ways to mitigate the problem. But bars and restaurants have high risks, just on a smaller scale than the stadiums, malls, convention centers, and other high contact venues. It sucks, but that's the way it is. I already said HCQ was acknowledge as a potential benefit in the early going, but the medical experts warned it was in no way proven to by a cure. That's why it was important to listen to medical experts, not Trump. Turns out HCQ was even less than that: A National Institutes of Health clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has formally concluded that the drug provides no clinical benefit to hospitalized patients.Nov 9, 2020 I don't know if you or I can assert that medical experts were "lying" about masks, but over the past 8 months they could not have been less ambiguous about the value of mask wearing and social distancing --- the type of science that leans into common sense. From what you've witnessed in 2020, do you believe that medical experts insisting on mask-wearing a month earlier than they did would have made any difference to the people who refuse to wear a mask?

California has been saying that for years. Until 2020 we had a June primary. Meaning the largest electoral state voted only after most primary candidates had dropped out and the nominee was already anointed. So if the slate had been wide open, what are some Republican candidates you guys would like to have seen in 2016? Did a favorite not make it to the ballot? That was a large stable of candidates as I recall. The moderates got weeded out pretty quickly. A variety of states had their choice, and Donald Trump and Ted Cruz were the last two standing. Trump and Cruz weren't the traditional urban/suburban Republican candidates, so it really felt like the blue collar and rural Republicans had spoken. I see a lot of folks saying they 'd prefer a guy like John Kasich, but they had a chance to vote for him and didn't.

Well in January and February 2020, the medical experts were warning us that the coronavirus was a global pandemic and likely to be very consequential. They said it was like the flu and common cold in certain respects, but substantially different in others. Their early estimates were that COVID was five times more deadly than the seasonal flu, and could overwhelm ICUs if left unchecked. Those who predicted between 300,000 and 400,000 COVID deaths in the coming year were considered alarmist. In March they underplayed the need for facemasks. Some say this was done to ensure healthcare workers had initial access to the limited supply. By April the experts were clear that facemasks and social distancing were the best available methods for curbing the spread. These simple methods allowed a majority of businesses to reopen. They acknowledged hydroxychholoquine among the many potential treatments for COVID, but warned that it was in no way proven to be a cure. The medical experts warned about a post-Mother's Day spike, and predicted both the summer surge and the second wave we're currently experiencing, mirrored very closely by the 1918 Influenza pandemic. Most importantly, they admitted what they didn't know, and tried to remind us it was an evolving crisis with no simple answers, requiring a certain amount of patience, sacrifice, and cooperation. Donald Trump claimed the coronavirus would magically go away, pimped hydroxychloriquine and any quack theory he found on the internet, and took pleasure hosting large, maskless events. You're 0 for 2 on false equivalencies today.

I think any President would have taken a hit when COVID sent the economy reeling, but doesn't Donald Trump's messaging go well beyond "not helpful?" Trump viewed the coronavirus exclusively through the lens of how it would hurt his reelection bid. Precisely as he sowed doubt on the integrity of this election, he undermined the messaging of medical experts. Hosting and televising his own super-spreader events throughout the pandemic was also beyond "not helpful." This man doesn't see 350,000 dead Americans; he sees weak people who cost him the election. He's a sociopath. The same sociopath who ran in 2016. I mean hey, I'm grateful enough Republicans in power are now willing to condemn the President and push back against their own QAnon wing. Didn't want to go that way alone. I was honestly heartened the see Mitch McConnell and Linsdey Graham drop the hammer on Trump in unambiguous terms. But wow....it's very late in the game, and Trump is the same sociopath they've always enabled.

You are indeed a more measured, reasonable and informed poster than many Trump apologists who've come before you. And yeah, while I notice you are willing to criticize the President on occasion, the bulk of your arguments deflect and rationalize where Trump has led the country. And yeah, I'm pissed and you just happen to be here. Hat's off for the courage to show up today. Seriously. But if you're main takeaway from yesterday is that the BLM riots were just as bad, you go back to square one. There are two sides to this story but they are not equal. Civil rights injustices are disturbingly real. Claims that the U.S. election was wildly fraudulent are entirely false. In the latter case, it's incitement by the sitting President for armed supporters to stage the coup he can't launch by any legal means. Any mention of BLM, or the Antifa s#!t that the rightwing and Fox has latched onto, is deflection from the horrible human being you've helped enable for years.

What's more amazing is that an Antifa actor spent years creating her character in order to pull off their nefarious black flag operation yesterday.

You do know that yesterday's protestors broke into the U.S. Capitol based on the 100% false provocations of the sitting President to fuel his illegal and un-Constitutional delusions, right? And that yesterdays protestors met a very different resistance from law enforcement than last summer's protestors, right? It's stunning but predictable that defenders of this human s#!t-stain want to blame yesterday on BLM, Antifa, and the mainstream media. In fairness, if Trump refuses to leave the White House, I will happily join the un-polite and non-peaceful horde that drags him out.

You're probably right. But there's this reemerging storyline where people who've been working closely with Trump have declared him a madman. That's the word they used. Madman. They let him rage and try to distance themselves, thinking he's impotent and on his way out. d!(k Cheney convening all living Secretaries of Defense to denounce any attempted coup raises the likelihood that people inside the military were hearing rumors of how the military might be used to enable Trump. That was d!(k Cheney's breaking point. This insurrection might be a breaking point for others. You've never had to look farther than Donald Trump's own Tweets to know that he's a crazed megalomaniac. We've talked for years about how dangerous this man could be. Now there he is. Leaving no doubt. Get him away from the levers of power immediately, and prosecute him for treason. If he insists on a non-peaceful transition, give it to him. But again, you're probably right.

This can only end with Donald Trump in jail for sedition. Tomorrow works for me.

That could work, although creative accounting created the loopholes in the first place, and highly compensated tax attorneys will continue to dodge enforcement. The current system privatizes wealth and lets the public bear the risk. Been that way through multiple administrations, and that's what needs to change. But money talks, and it buys the talking points that make hard-working Americans believe Joe Biden is a Marxist.

The Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush administrations would often confound their opponents with pragmatic legislation that made sense for most if not all Americans. Congress could continue to fight on more contentious issues, but come together on a slew of other issues and congratulate themselves for the spirit of cooperation. You could do that without calling yourself a moderate, and voters generally wouldn't call you a turncoat. When Obama was elected President, leading congressional Republicans gathered in January 2009 to lick their wounds and strategize. They agreed to oppose whatever Obama tried to push through that winter, while they decided what Republicans stood for moving forward. Pretty soon they figured out that opposing everything Obama did was exactly what they stood for. Confusion and resistance to Obamacare greased those skids. True story. Not saying Democrats aren't culpable, too, just that the GOP threw down the zero sum binary gauntlet and now both parties are stuck with it. Also: the internet. It's really amplified our most tribal instincts.

Since you already posted that you feared Democratic policies would be the end of mankind, the burden of proof (and humor) is on you. There has been about 20 years of results on privatized schools in the conservative model, and it's been pretty disappointing. A commitment to put some of that wasteful military spending into public education could make America great again. Taxation? Well we can talk a good game, but at the end of the day the wealthy enjoy massive loopholes. The rest of your premise is bizarrely false: even a modest increase in taxes on corporations and multi-millionaires --- remaining far below what they've been in America's golden past --- and you can pay for hugely beneficial social programs. Fun fact; you know who benefits from a healthier, more financially secure, and better educated population? Big business. Healthcare? Surely you know that Obamacare was sabotaged at every turn by Republicans, and yet it still provides coverage for millions of otherwise uninsured Americans. If you'd like to improve this imperfect system, come join us! It'll be fun.

I hadn't thought of that. You're right. Life is going to get very interesting for Joe Manchin. Mitt Romney, too.

Tons of specific laws, many of them with little rationale beyond undoing whatever Obama did out of spite. Let's start with environmental rollbacks. I can keep going from there, but you get the idea. If you have the time we can pick apart the 2017 Tax Reform plan -- a blatant and cynical giveaway to the top percenters. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html

I can see how a slight shift from military overspending to more equitable healthcare, education, and taxation would frighten you

There's a lot I hope they will push through, but for the time being I hope the Democrats simply reverse the awful s#!t the guy you voted for pushed through.