Merged The election was stolen/rigged!

[Alareth]

The Pew Media Center reports:

One week before the election, MSNBC broadcast 51% of stories on Obama were positive with zero negative stories.

On the other hand, 68% of stories on Romney were negative, with no positive stores.

Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbles would approve.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser...o-networks-leading-up-to-election-day_b155747

 

[JayUtah]

It's not a matter of law but one of journalistic ethics. It's one thing to have opinion, quite another to taint and spin the news in one direction. That's dishonest.

So explain why you rely so heavily on tabloid sources such as WND to spoon-feed your your beliefs and arguments. Do you consider WND an ethical and reliable news source, and if so why?

The article you cite describes research that suggests some news outlets sometimes slant their coverage in favor of one candidate or another, some worse than others. This isn't revelatory, since they've been famously doing that since 1805 in America, as Thomas Jefferson discovered to his chagrine. The notion that news outlets have political leanings is about as shocking and important as the discovery that water is wet.

I'm wondering what your new-found interest in journalist ethics has to do with your claims that the 2012 presidential election was "stolen" or "rigged." Given that this thread has been admonished to keep to that subject and avoid political recriminations and diatribes, I hope your next post will bridge the gap between the unlawful activity you allege the "evil Democrats" to have perpetrated and the normal though admittedly partisan media activity you've now reported.

 

[Robert Prey]

So explain why you rely so heavily on tabloid sources such as WND to spoon-feed your your beliefs and arguments. Do you consider WND an ethical and reliable news source, and if so why?

WND is a news and opinion source. It is not a tabloid.

 

[Robert Prey]

So Fox news and WND are exemplars of spin and bias free news in the land of fantasy now.

When Fox presents news, it is clearly news and not opinion. Fox is indeed the most fair and balanced of all media.

 

[Robert Prey]

I guess you don't have any problem with Fox News doing that, do you?

I know you have no problem at all with the amount of spin and taint in WND.

You have a problem distinguishing news from opinion.

 

[Robert Prey]

Just to add another view

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/21/2012-election-polling-skewed-for-mitt-romney

How the 2012 election polling really was skewed – for Mitt Romney

Many in the GOP were sure polls were biased against their guy. In fact, they undershot Obama's win by an embarrassing margin

The polling may have been skewed, or screwed (via Election Fraud).

 

[JayUtah]

WND is a news and opinion source. It is not a tabloid.

When Fox presents news, it is clearly news and not opinion. Fox is indeed the most fair and balanced of all media.

You have a problem distinguishing news from opinion.

I'm just going to let these statements speak for themselves. When you're ready to take the discussion seriously again, let us know.

 

[Robert Prey]

Indeed the story does begin with
"A new Pew study looking at media coverage leading up to election day indicates that President Obama received far more positive coverage than negative coverage, and that Mitt Romney received far more negative coverage than positive coverage. On cable news, however, things were a bit more extreme." which is the reporter's take on the study.

This is probably due to this passage in the Pew article itself


Was this due to MSNBC alone? Of course not. In fact if one looks at Fox's stats one sees that the number of negative Romney stories in the final week is double that of the number of Obama positive stories. This from the network that is so slanted Republican itself.

One major difference between MSNBC and FOX wrt to the favoured candidates, IMHO, is that Republicans had great reservations concerning Romney, his Mormon religion for one. While some Republicans still believe that Obama is a Muslim, this same subset would also consider Mormonism to be a cult and in more moderate Christian subsets the knowledge that Obama IS a Christian (if perhaps lax in the faith) this subset would also have reservations about Mormonism.

While this obviously would not drive extremists to vote Obama it would contribute to less incentive to vote at all in this group. Among more moderate Republican though it could actually have driven some to vote for Obama rather than take a flyer on a man who's religion they are suspicious of.

Of course the Republican primaries really did not help Romney either and the very same negative stories that doged him during the primaries were part of the push by Democrats during the last week.

Romney/Ryan really did not help matters themselves when they attacked Obama for 'choosing winners and losers' when a simple comparison showed that Bain Capital had a worse record of doing exactly that and the gist of which was part of the primaries attack on Romney!

Our resident right wing extremist in this thread himself does not like Romney. Not sure if Robert stated whether or not he cast a ballot.


ETA: at least Robert is coming close to quoting valid research now, though in this case he chose to quote an article about the research rather than the summary from the people who actually DID the research.
Of course its tangentially related, at best, to the OP and has zero to do with the actual voting.
In fact if the neg/pos news story ratio did substantially contribute to the Obama win then that simply confirms that the election results were on the up and up.

I think it highly fallacious to attribute the outcome to one or two factors, but many factors contributed to the outcome including

1. Election Fraud

2. Freebies promised and given to favored groups via executive order

3. Racial demographics, in the case of Black Americans, in the case of Hispanics -- freebies.

4. Hurricane Sandy and Gov.Christie's over the top gushing about Obama's response.

5. General ignorance on a part or the Democrat electorate as to the America's imminent economic collapse and the need for drastic measures to prevent it. Paul Ryan spoke of having an Adult conversation about the debt. America tuned out, instead preferring to view Obama field softball questions on low life entertainment TV shows.

6. Romney's 47% gaffe (though true, not very politic).

7. The demonization of Romney's business success.

8. Media bias -- blatant Obama Worship.

9. Money donated by wealthy, low information, Hollywood Airheads.

 

[JayUtah]

I think it highly fallacious to attribute the outcome to one or two factors, but many factors contributed to the outcome including

1. Election Fraud

...which you cannot prove occurred.

All the rest are just normal politics, of the brand practiced by all political parties. Distasteful, but not illegal. They are also off-topic, so quite trying to change the subject.

You've accused your political enemies of unlawful practices to obtain the Presidency. Make with the proof or withdraw the accusation.

 

[uk_dave]

Poor Robert,

With all that stacked against you it looks like you'll never be going back to the pre-world war one America you remember so fondly.

 

[jaydeehess]

I think it highly fallacious to attribute the outcome to one or two factors, but many factors contributed to the outcome including

1. Election Fraud

Which would have been illegal, and which you have yet to illustrate ever occured and which has most certainly not been pursued by the people with the most to gain by its discovery.

2. Freebies promised and given to favored groups via executive order

Which is not illegal.
Many of which were ALREADY available and had been for some time. Then of course there are the promises and freebies that the opposition candidate offered to upper income people. Romney also sunk his ship by doing the exact opposite and literally alienating47% of the voting public.

3. Racial demographics, in the case of Black Americans, in the case of Hispanics -- freebies.

This is not a separate point. Its covered in number 2 above

4. Hurricane Sandy and Gov.Christie's over the top gushing about Obama's response.

Which is not illegal.

I respect Christie for being able to put aside politics and call it as it is. You seem to have the opposite opinion and would have expected Christie to bad mouth Obama while accepting timely attention and aid from him.
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN POLITICAL SPIN AT ITS WORST Robert and you would have applauded!

5. General ignorance on a part or the Democrat electorate as to the America's imminent economic collapse and the need for drastic measures to prevent it. Paul Ryan spoke of having an Adult conversation about the debt. America tuned out, instead preferring to view Obama field softball questions on low life entertainment TV shows.

Which is not illegal.

Its good thing no one asked him what newspapers he reads.
As for economic collapse, yes I agree that the world as a whole looks bad right now and the USA must do something about its own house asap. However the party of "No!" completely stalled any measures the last 4 years and is largely responsible for the deregulation of the financial sector in the USA which caused the worst of the meltdown in the first place and is the party of the administration that incompetatnly waged two wars that cost your country a trillion dollars. The Democratic electorate knows THAT and was probably quite hesitant to hand over the reins to that same bunch yet again.

6. Romney's 47% gaffe (though true, not very politic).

Which is not illegal.

and not his only such demonstration of his utter contempt of people who must work for a living.

7. The demonization of Romney's business success.

Which is(demonization) not illegal.

,,, accomplished in many cases by ignoring the effct his actions would have on the people who must work for a living in favour of $$ for rish investors.

8. Media bias -- blatant Obama Worship.

Which is not illegal.

This is your opinion though, however as you point out his opponent offered himself up for demonization.

9. Money donated by wealthy, low information, Hollywood Airheads.

Which is not illegal.

OMG!! yeah and the Koch brothers and their ilk stood off to the side and did nothing as did Eastwood and Nugent ( a pair of airheads themselves)

low information?? Who's fault is it that the Republican machine could not supply information they wanted to put out to the public?

Of course only one of the above points has anything to do at all with the title of this thread. Are you now trying to run away from ever illustrating that electoral fraud ever occured let alone that it was done massively and exclusively and in an organised fashion, by the Democratic political organizations?

You began this latest derail by quoting an article which opined on a respectable stats company's article. Try doing that again, this time wrt bolstering your point about widespread, organised election fraud.

 

[Straw Man]

Hey, Robert, here's a bit of way out thinking. Perhaps more people just preferred Obama over Romney, and voted that way?

 

[jaydeehess]

Hey, Robert, here's a bit of way out thinking. Perhaps more people just preferred Obama over Romney, and voted that way?

Certainly would appear that way. Robert's entire arguement in this thread seems born of a really intense case of Sour Grapes!

 

[SpitfireIX]

i'm just going to let these statements speak for themselves. When you're ready to take the discussion seriously again for the first time, let us know.

ftfy

 

[Garrison]

It's not a matter of law but one of journalistic ethics. It's one thing to have opinion, quite another to taint and spin the news in one direction. That's dishonest.

So you would equally condemn FOX News then? As others have pointed they are hardly a paragon of virtue in that regard.

And again would it really be dishonest if the organizations genuinely feel that one candidate is superior to another? And believing that candidates policies are superior also tends to give them more favourable coverage? Newspapers pick a party or candidate to endorse what so wrong if a broadcaster does essentially the same thing? (Note not saying that this actually happens, just that its hardly evidence of some dark conspiracy if it were to happen).

 

[Robert Prey]

So you would equally condemn FOX News then? As others have pointed they are hardly a paragon of virtue in that regard.

And again would it really be dishonest if the organizations genuinely feel that one candidate is superior to another? And believing that candidates policies are superior also tends to give them more favourable coverage? Newspapers pick a party or candidate to endorse what so wrong if a broadcaster does essentially the same thing? (Note not saying that this actually happens, just that its hardly evidence of some dark conspiracy if it were to happen).

Election polls show that an overwhelming majority of voters never heard of Bengahzi. That would not include regular Fox viewers. The mainstream news media spins the news by simply not reporting news that might conflict with their religion -- Obama worship.

 

[Robert Prey]

Which would have been illegal, and which you have yet to illustrate ever occured and which has most certainly not been pursued by the people with the most to gain by its discovery.


Which is not illegal.
Many of which were ALREADY available and had been for some time. Then of course there are the promises and freebies that the opposition candidate offered to upper income people. Romney also sunk his ship by doing the exact opposite and literally alienating47% of the voting public.



This is not a separate point. Its covered in number 2 above

Which is not illegal.

I respect Christie for being able to put aside politics and call it as it is. You seem to have the opposite opinion and would have expected Christie to bad mouth Obama while accepting timely attention and aid from him.
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN POLITICAL SPIN AT ITS WORST Robert and you would have applauded!



Which is not illegal.

Its good thing no one asked him what newspapers he reads.
As for economic collapse, yes I agree that the world as a whole looks bad right now and the USA must do something about its own house asap. However the party of "No!" completely stalled any measures the last 4 years and is largely responsible for the deregulation of the financial sector in the USA which caused the worst of the meltdown in the first place and is the party of the administration that incompetatnly waged two wars that cost your country a trillion dollars. The Democratic electorate knows THAT and was probably quite hesitant to hand over the reins to that same bunch yet again.


Which is not illegal.

and not his only such demonstration of his utter contempt of people who must work for a living.


Which is(demonization) not illegal.

,,, accomplished in many cases by ignoring the effct his actions would have on the people who must work for a living in favour of $$ for rish investors.


Which is not illegal.

This is your opinion though, however as you point out his opponent offered himself up for demonization.


Which is not illegal.

OMG!! yeah and the Koch brothers and their ilk stood off to the side and did nothing as did Eastwood and Nugent ( a pair of airheads themselves)

low information?? Who's fault is it that the Republican machine could not supply information they wanted to put out to the public?

Of course only one of the above points has anything to do at all with the title of this thread. Are you now trying to run away from ever illustrating that electoral fraud ever occured let alone that it was done massively and exclusively and in an organised fashion, by the Democratic political organizations?

You began this latest derail by quoting an article which opined on a respectable stats company's article. Try doing that again, this time wrt bolstering your point about widespread, organised election fraud.

No. Immorality is not necessarily illegal. Just immoral.

 

[Robert Prey]

So you would equally condemn FOX News then? As others have pointed they are hardly a paragon of virtue in that regard.

And again would it really be dishonest if the organizations genuinely feel that one candidate is superior to another? And believing that candidates policies are superior also tends to give them more favourable coverage? Newspapers pick a party or candidate to endorse what so wrong if a broadcaster does essentially the same thing? (Note not saying that this actually happens, just that its hardly evidence of some dark conspiracy if it were to happen).

Broadcasters express opinion as opinion. News casters announce news as though as if it really was news, not propaganda. And you would expect a news organization to not censor the news that conflicts with their ideology -- such as the non-coverage of Benghazi by the mainstream media.

 

[Robert Prey]

...which you cannot prove occurred.

All the rest are just normal politics, of the brand practiced by all political parties. Distasteful, but not illegal. They are also off-topic, so quite trying to change the subject.

You've accused your political enemies of unlawful practices to obtain the Presidency. Make with the proof or withdraw the accusation.

There is absolute proof and then there is also probable cause. I've previously cited both.

 

[JayUtah]

There is absolute proof and then there is also probable cause. I've previously cited both.

It would be interesting to see which of your handwaving rants you consider "absolute proof" of voter fraud. Be so kind as to identify it, please. Also, explain why the GOP hasn't seen fit to act on it, given the obscene sum they spent trying to get Romney elected president.

As for "probable cause," no. Simply attributing to "electoral fraud" what departs from your biased and ill-informed expectation does not constitute "probable cause" of anything except for your ignorance and bias. Even the GOP admits they lost the presidential election, not that it was stolen from them or rigged.