News just isn't what it used to be.....

Jarod, the sinking ratings is what happens RIGHT BEFORE something goes out of business. It can be used as a predictive indicator of anticipated success, or failure, as the case may be. Whichever it is. :rolleyes:
 
yeah...what happened to all the talk about how we are LOSING

where are the pictures of the body bags coming home to the US?

i've been saying this about the media for over half a year and apparently it is still happening. pretty much as soon as obama took office the slant on both wars changed. the slant took a much more positive view and i don't recall anyone ever saying anthing about losing again. if someone has a link of dem senators saying we're losing, lets it, because iirc biden just came out and said iraq is one of obama's greatest achievements....

the hypocrisy on this matter is inexecusable
 
People keep talking about "pictures of body bags". That harkens back to a debate in 2006-07 about showing coffins with American flags on the news, and listing the names of the fallen soldiers. It was a one-time deal.

Listening to you guys, you would think that there were body bags on the news every day in '08. There was hardly any war coverage at all in '08. The media, and the country, had war fatigue, and still does.
 
I don't need to be convinced of a drop in coverage, that's Nigel's department. I think that your interpretation of "why" it happened is where we part ways.
 
Damocles said:
I don't need to be convinced of a drop in coverage, that's Nigel's department. I think that your interpretation of "why" it happened is where we part ways.
Click to expand...

What's your interpretation of the "why?"

Because Bush was no longer President...when it dropped sharply from 2007 to 2008?

Because, you know, like - he was President then...
 
Onceler said:
What's your interpretation of the "why?"

Because Bush was no longer President...when it dropped sharply from 2007 to 2008?

Because, you know, like - he was President then...
Click to expand...
My "interpretation" was, and has been, they collectively worked to elect the person that they wanted and have since worked to protect him from the same treatment received by the previous inhabitant of that same office.
 
Damocles said:
My "interpretation" was, and has been, they collectively worked to elect the person that they wanted and have since worked to protect him from the same treatment received by the previous inhabitant of that same office.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory. So why would the war news coverage go from 15% to 3% from 2007 to the beginning of 2008, and go even lower from there on out?

The stats bear out what I have claimed all along; news coverage of the war didn't drop off a cliff as soon as Obama was elected. It dropped off a cliff a year prior to that.

Again - it's called "war fatigue."
 
Onceler said:
Interesting theory. So why would the war news coverage go from 15% to 3% from 2007 to the beginning of 2008, and go even lower from there on out?

The stats bear out what I have claimed all along; news coverage of the war didn't drop off a cliff as soon as Obama was elected. It dropped off a cliff a year prior to that.

Again - it's called "war fatigue."
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the pattern it would take if they had done what I said. When was the election and the run up to that election? They began their run to elect who they wanted, to do that they changed coverage to the election, once he was elected they worked to defer that kind of coverage... Yes, the numbers show the pattern that would fit exactly what I said I think happened.
 
Onceler said:
Here are some actual facts about the decline of war coverage from 2007 on:

http://people-press.org/report/401/awareness-of-iraq-war-fatalities-plummets

Coverage dropped from 15% of the news in 2007 to just 3% by the beginning of 2008, as coverage of the primaries & then the election and recession took over.

There are later studies showing continued drops in % of coverage, as well.
Click to expand...

yes, the election had a part to play

however, obama ramped up the afghanistan war, deaths skyrocketed, and barely a peep about it. civilians are dying in higher numbers and barely a peep about it. obama is not called a murderer as bush was. obama also gets a major pass on biden saying iraq is one of his greatest accomplishments.

i know you want desperately to believe it is not about obama, but it is. the slant of the news shows to any rational person that it is more about obama than your purported war fatigue theory.
 
Damocles said:
I don't need to be convinced of a drop in coverage, that's Nigel's department. I think that your interpretation of "why" it happened is where we part ways.
Click to expand...

Ugh. This is what I said previously:

In the end, I concede that coverage of the wars has dwindled, but I sense it has a bit more to do with the fact that our economy imploded than it has to do with the party of the person occupying the White House.
Click to expand...


We seem to disagreeing on causation.

I also note that at the height of the Iraq War and the height of the media coverage of it the United State suffered twice the rate of fatalities as in Afghanistan today.
 
Yurt said:
yes, the election had a part to play

however, obama ramped up the afghanistan war, deaths skyrocketed, and barely a peep about it. civilians are dying in higher numbers and barely a peep about it. obama is not called a murderer as bush was. obama also gets a major pass on biden saying iraq is one of his greatest accomplishments.

i know you want desperately to believe it is not about obama, but it is. the slant of the news shows to any rational person that it is more about obama than your purported war fatigue theory.
Click to expand...

You stated "as soon as Obama took office." The stats show that there was a sharp decline in coverage over a year prior to that. And I know of no MSM outlets that had stories on Bush being a "murderer."

Once again, the facts win out over a "hunch."
 
Onceler said:
This is a fallacy. It's called "war fatigue," and the media had it throughout 2008 and even in 2007.

We hardly read about casualties OR the war anymore in the last year of Bush's Presidency. It wasn't "all we heard about" anymore. The media & the country simply didn't want to hear about it, and still don't.

Face it - both Afghanistan & Iraq have been excruciatingly long wars.
Click to expand...

I think that decline in coverage had more to do with the fact that the surge was working, despite the fact that many Dem leaders were on the MSM telling us how Iraq was 'lost' and the surge 'wouldn't work'. Had the body count continued to rise during late 2007 and 2008, my guess is we would still have heard about it in the most vigorous of manners from the MSM and the Dem leadership.
 
Superfreak said:
I think that decline in coverage had more to do with the fact that the surge was working, despite the fact that many Dem leaders were on the MSM telling us how Iraq was 'lost' and the surge 'wouldn't work'. Had the body count continued to rise during late 2007 and 2008, my guess is we would still have heard about it in the most vigorous of manners from the MSM and the Dem leadership.
Click to expand...

thats a good point. how is it then that afghan body count continues to rise and we barely hear about it? the surge in iraq actually lowered body counts, but the surge in afghanistan has raised body counts.....
 
Superfreak said:
I think that decline in coverage had more to do with the fact that the surge was working, despite the fact that many Dem leaders were on the MSM telling us how Iraq was 'lost' and the surge 'wouldn't work'. Had the body count continued to rise during late 2007 and 2008, my guess is we would still have heard about it in the most vigorous of manners from the MSM and the Dem leadership.
Click to expand...

Well, if I had to guess from some of the posts here, the media could have spun things any way they wanted, as long as it would get the Messiah elected.

It's possible what you say is true, though I would also counter that the media is less inclined to report good news, period (and not just good news that would seem to benefit Bush).

To me, there is absolutely no doubt that war fatigue was a major factor in the coverage decline. We have been at war for a very long time.
 
Onceler said:
You stated "as soon as Obama took office." The stats show that there was a sharp decline in coverage over a year prior to that. And I know of no MSM outlets that had stories on Bush being a "murderer."

Once again, the facts win out over a "hunch."
Click to expand...

what did i say happened "pretty much" when obama took office onceler? no surprise you are once again misconstruing what i said.

pretty much as soon as obama took office the slant on both wars changed. the slant took a much more positive view and i don't recall anyone ever saying anthing about losing again
Click to expand...

all you have is pure conjecture as to why we have the decrease. your only fact is that it decreased prior to obama taking office. i was talking more about the slant. it is undeniable that the slant changed when obama took office. where are the photos of the bodies coming home onceler? obama has ramped up the war in afghanistan, yet we hardly hear anything about that. biden claims iraq is one of obama's greatest achievements, and barely, if any, a peep from the press about this completely erroneous statement. where are the dems and media reporting how we "lost" in iraq?
 
Onceler said:
Well, if I had to guess from some of the posts here, the media could have spun things any way they wanted, as long as it would get the Messiah elected.

It's possible what you say is true, though I would also counter that the media is less inclined to report good news, period (and not just good news that would seem to benefit Bush).

To me, there is absolutely no doubt that war fatigue was a major factor in the coverage decline. We have been at war for a very long time.
Click to expand...

I would agree with the middle paragraph. 'good news' doesn't 'sell' nearly as well. Which is a sad commentary on our society as a whole.

I disagree with the third paragraph. While the war had been going on for a long period, had the body count continued, there would not have been 'fatigue'. The fact that the coverage declined as the situation improved says far more about why the decline occurred.

The fact that the Afghan war getting worse also is not garnering much coverage is also quite telling.
 
"what did i say happened "pretty much" when obama took office onceler? no surprise you are once again misconstruing what i said. "

And no surprise that you are once again parsing words to the nth degree. Is that really supposed to change the point you were making? I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "citing the CBO is," is.....


"all you have is pure conjecture as to why we have the decrease. your only fact is that it decreased prior to obama taking office. i was talking more about the slant. it is undeniable that the slant changed when obama took office. where are the photos of the bodies coming home onceler? obama has ramped up the war in afghanistan, yet we hardly hear anything about that. biden claims iraq is one of obama's greatest achievements, and barely, if any, a peep from the press about this completely erroneous statement. where are the dems and media reporting how we "lost" in iraq? "

That's all anyone has. I am the only one on the thread who has actually produced stats about the decrease (which, btw, was in doubt early in the thread). All I see is conjecture that the "slant" has changed; I don't see facts.

As for Biden, he's "pretty much" a buffoon...
 
Onceler said:
"what did i say happened "pretty much" when obama took office onceler? no surprise you are once again misconstruing what i said. "

And no surprise that you are once again parsing words to the nth degree. Is that really supposed to change the point you were making? I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "citing the CBO is," is.....


"all you have is pure conjecture as to why we have the decrease. your only fact is that it decreased prior to obama taking office. i was talking more about the slant. it is undeniable that the slant changed when obama took office. where are the photos of the bodies coming home onceler? obama has ramped up the war in afghanistan, yet we hardly hear anything about that. biden claims iraq is one of obama's greatest achievements, and barely, if any, a peep from the press about this completely erroneous statement. where are the dems and media reporting how we "lost" in iraq? "

That's all anyone has. I am the only one on the thread who has actually produced stats about the decrease (which, btw, was in doubt early in the thread). All I see is conjecture that the "slant" has changed; I don't see facts.

As for Biden, he's "pretty much" a buffoon...
Click to expand...

not true. you claimed i said the coverage decreased when obama took office. what i said was the slant pretty much changed when obama took office. it is disengious to claim they are one and the same.

you can't answer the FACT that there has been little if any reporting on the dead bodies, that iraq is one of obama's greatest accomplishments and why we don't hear about us losing in iraq anymore....instead, we hear how it is a great achievement of our CIC. those are the facts and you can't dispute them, it is why you refuse to answer them, because it doesn't mesh with your theory.

try being a little more objective onceler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top