Media Coverage Of Politics

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"That and the whole article indicate that the NYT thinks there is merit to the accusations (other than the child prostitute charges)."

I didn't deny that. Then why alter the quote to make it appear that the Times thought it was a smear when that is blatenly false? You also started the whole thread and said that no one other than Fox news was spending any meaningful time on Menendez. A quick search shows that the NYTs has written a few articles on it. But why do you think the NYT found it relevent to mention that some paid GOP operatives are involved? The latest article was about how the story developed. The Times didn't in any away argue that it was false.If the story is true, why mention the source? The answer, is to diminish the seriousness of teh charges, and shift some of the blame to Senator Menendez's political opponents.They didn't do that (other than the child prostitution charge - you're really reaching now

"Did you find any links to Rubio and his water problem in the NYT yet? I'd like to see them"

Earlier, you made some smug comment to one of the conservatives here about the fact that if he couldn't do the google searches on his own, you'd help him with it. Let's assume you are capable of doing the same Google search I did.I did a search on the NYT site and found that they didn't give the press you seem to think they did to Rubio's water problem. I did the search BEFOFE I posted so I wouldn't look as silly as you do right now.

I found coverage in the NYT of the Rubio water drinking. How much? Bc your first post said that "All the news stations are going crazy....." Back up your words and show me how the Times is "going crazy" over the issue! Even if I hadn't, my point about media bias was still valid. I did not say that every single liberal media outlet, with zero exceptions, was trumping up the Rubio water thing. So what do your words "All the news stations are going crazy" mean then? You're the one who finds one example of what you don't like and apply that to all liberals or in this case the news stations. Had I said that it seems like you did say that by the use of your word all, your responses would be relevent. Since I didn't say that, your responses are not as relevent, though they are somewhat relevent. Pointing out one single exception does not refute a generalized the use of the word all is a generalization?statement. Yet I have pointed out that is exactly what you have done numerous times on this sight.

I see you won't comment on MSNBC's coverages of the Rubio water drinking, versus their coverage of the Menendez thing. I wonder why that could be? Hmmm, that's a real head-scratcher.
I'm not a big follower of MSNBC. If they did cover Rubio leaching water like a dehumidifer in Mississippi in July, so be it. Maybe they should have covered Obama using a teleprompter - seeing how much has that been discussed here

.

nm

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

nm

Paul, here is why you are not someone to be taken seriously.

In my first post, I stated that the NYT admitted the charges against Menendez were serious. You keep saying that I somehow "altered" the article to make it seem like the NYT wasn't admitting to the seriousness of the charges. What you are accusing me of, simply didn't happen. It. Did. Not. Happen. Am I going too fast for you?

When I make generalized statements (and I use hyperbole a lot) you think you can refute them by pointing to one exception. Yet you allow yourself the liberty to say things like "Rubio leeching water like a dehumidifier". If you can use hyperbole, why can't anyone else?

The Rubio water thing was all over NBC, MSNBC, and CNN. I haven't seen much coverage of the Menendez story on those outlets, and I follow these things pretty closely. Can I mathematically prove that those stations gave more coverage to Rubio than Menendez? No, I cannot, I don't have the resources to do that. Nor can I prove mathematically that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure it's the case.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, here is why you are not someone to be taken seriously.You mean because I've proven you wrong?

In my first post, I stated that the NYT admitted the charges against Menendez were seriousNo you didn't. Your quote was "By the way, here is a piece in the NYT suggesting that at least part of the Menendez investigation is nothing more than a political smear...". You keep saying that I somehow "altered" the article to make it seem like the NYT wasn't admitting to the seriousness of the charges.That is exactly what you did. You took out the part where the paper said that Menendez and his staff thought it was a smear. What you are accusing me of, simply didn't happen. It. Did. Not. Happen. Am I going too fast for you?Wrong, you did. And am I going too fast for you - (in my best Jim in Ct voice) YOU ALTERED THE SENTENCE BY LEAVING OUT THE FIRST PART.

When I make generalized statements (and I use hyperbole a lot) you think you can refute them by pointing to one exception. Yet you allow yourself the liberty to say things like "Rubio leeching water like a dehumidifier". If you can use hyperbole, why can't anyone elseSo you think that my statement laughing at Rubio's sweating is the same as your statement which started the whole post about the amount of press on the 2 issues?

The Rubio water thing was all over NBC, MSNBC, and CNN. I haven't seen much coverage of the Menendez story on those outlets, and I follow these things pretty closely. Can I mathematically prove that those stations gave more coverage to Rubio than Menendez? No, I cannot, I don't have the resources to do that. Nor can I prove mathematically that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure it's the case.

So your "emotions" are telling you that they gave more press to Rubio than Menedez Stick with #s, you're not cut out for this word thing

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So your "emotions" are telling you that they gave more press to Rubio than Menedez Stick with #s, you're not cut out for this word thing

MSNBC showed the Rubio water clip over 100 times. CNN asked if it was a "career ender". Brian Williams, the NBC anchor, said teh water reach "just might live on forever". Wolf Blitzer said Rubio's drinking water was "profoundly depressing".

The Mainstream Media Are Even Dumber Than You Thought

And when the NYT gets around to mentioning the Memendez allegations, they can't do it without stating explicitly that part of this is nothing more than "political smear".

Here's more...

Rubio vs. Menendez: A tale of two Hispanic senators and media hypocrisy - The Hill's Pundits Blog


"Media Research Center reports that there have been only seven stories on CBS, ABC and NBC about Menendez in three weeks, yet the Mark Foley story of his racy emails to pages warranted 152 stories by those same networks in a two-week period."

CBS, NBC, and ABC are the 3 major networks. Combined, the 3 of them did a whopping 7 stories on Menendez, in 3 weeks. Yet those same 3 netwoks did 152 stories about Mark Foley's actions?

So no, it's clearly not just my emotions at play here. What's on display here is my ability to see things as they are, and draw correct conclusions, regardless of political ideology.

Your response?