[lit-ideas] Re: Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:52:41 +0900
Not quite QED. These days we have, thanks to the Internet, access to
numerous sources of information besides the mass media. FEC filings will
show you how much money is raised. Polls pour in day after day, stimulating
endless theorizing by policy wonks both left and right. You can quickly
discover where campaigns are spending their money or sending their
candidates and check police reports of crowd sizes. When one campaign is far
ahead in small donor donations (3.1 million individual donors at an average
of $86 apiece), running seven points ahead of its opposition in the tracking
poll averages, even those reported by Real Clear Politics (not at all a
left-wing site), campaigning vigorously in states lost in the previous cycle
while sitting on comfortable leads in states won the last cycle, and
prominent members of the other party are endorsing its candidate, it is
pretty clear which campaign is doing a better job. To pretend that the other
should be reported as if its performance were on a par would be ridiculous.
As I said before. There is a real bias, the one called reality.
John
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Phil asks; I find this a curious understanding of 'balance'. How does a
> news agency deal with a political campaign that is struggling?
>
>
> How did you learn that it was "struggling"?
>
> QED
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
