McGill is once again doing detailed analysis of political coverage, and GUESS WHAT, shocker of shocker- get your head out of Harper's ass conbots- you side is doing REMARKABLY WELL, again. Sorry to sound shrill, but the inability to incorporate facts into the theory, it all gets tiring. The problem, the right wing expects coverage to mirror their beliefs, failing to realize the center is called that for a reason. From their perspective the center, even slightly right of center looks like the left, an amazing disconnect.
Fair observers would agree, in terms of the "campaign", the Liberals have run a good one. Also true, if one had to pick a side, who has had the most "bumps" on the trail, again fair to say the Conservatives win on this score. Let's look at McGill's analysis so far:
If the Liberals’ plan was to attract attention, it worked. “Not only are they getting more coverage,” says Soroka, citing an increase in Ignatieff’s “first mentions” in news stories—up from 18 to 23 per cent between March 28 to April 2, compared to the previous week; Harper, meanwhile, fell from 68 to 62 per cent—”It’s also better coverage.”
Ignatieff nearly caught up with Harper in the degree of positive coverage in the 794 stories analyzed last week. He scored a “net tone” of 0.94 compared to Harper’s 1.06. That’s a big improvement over the previous week (March 21 to 26) when he was at 0.47, compared to Harper’s 1.04 and Layton’s 1.58. (Layton fell to 1.37 this week; the sample is not big enough to grade Gilles Duceppe.) Net tone is calculated by a computer program that looks at the words found near each leader’s name in a story and, using a dictionary of 6,500 words, determines whether the sentence is negative or positive.
Great news for the Liberals! Ignatieff is now getting over 1/3 as many mentions as Harper. In addition, we are doing SO well, that we've almost matched Harper in positive coverage, ALMOST, we "nearly caught up". Week one, heavy, heavy advantage for Harper, but week two ALMOST the same! Now, take those objective figures and compare them with the HOWLING right and their claims that the media is so pro-Liberal, out to get Harper, it actually hurts. You see NO basis in fact, again if anyone has a right to be suspicious it's our side of the aisle. Everyone agrees Liberals running best campaign, everyone agrees Harper has been on the defensive, off message for a few days at least, and STILL he is able to hold a slight advantage. Amazing, isn't it? What does it tell you, and who looks the fool for complaining? Maybe, just maybe, next week the Liberals can get SAME coverage, or dare I dream BETTER coverage. If so, it would be the first time in the last "four elections in seven years".
Just the facts, once AGAIN...
9 comments:
Since the media is 80% owned by three conservative business families that also own what little 'left wing" news there is in this country, and since Harper transferred hundreds of millions of propaganda budget dollars to those corporations that were on the verge of bankruptcy last year because their politics are more right wing than their readers, then The Action Plan Media Scam spin cycle machine that Harper paid for,(26 million just before the election) is still working, even if the facts and the campaign work against Harper.
Yes, if you look at who own's what, the right's "beef" not only evaporates, it looks irrational.
Waiting for someone to mention Ibbitson saying some in the press gallery hate Harper. I'm sure that was the case for every PM, and every Opposition Leader for that matter, but the FACTS show even if there is personal problems, it sure as shit hasn't translated into coverage.
It's as vapid as the coalition question, Iggy would be the PM til June if he had wanted to lead a coalition, when you have a party likes the Conservatives who don't want anyone to know what their real agenda is (see republican governors in US) they are left with bullshit and bafflegab.
This sums it up, Cons on twitter saying this article proves Iggy is getting better coverage than Harper. Seriously.
I just herd prairiekids's head explode.
Well, as Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
I doubt that anyone but the most deluded CONbot believes this 'left-wing media' haranguing; they do know that the screeching about it, faux reality and all, does help foster 'underdog' conditions.
Liberals have been the traditional governing party for so long, but it has more and more become a temporary meeting zone over the past 20 years and not the formidable fortress of old. As you note, the centre is a somewhat comfortable concession zone for a good number of voters who stray left and right. What we don't have is the ideologically driven machinery of the left and right, which puts us at another disadvantage.
I am actually amazed how few real questions the media asks of any party. Given that he is the incumbent I think Harper gets a very easy ride. And people think that the media has a "left-wing" bias are just so far gone that it is not worth discussing.
And yet again it is proof positive that I am 100% correct to use the "liberal media bias/conspiracy" argument as a decision point on whether the conservative supporter I am talking to is connected to actual objective (as opposed to incredibly subjective) reality and therefore able to have a rational reasoned conservation/debate/disagreement or whether they are already too far into the realm of delusion for it to be possible. This was after all the grounds I stopped treating Tomm as worth replying to despite his otherwise rational sounding persona online several years ago. Anyone that believes in this myth has already shown that they are whether they recognize it or not sufficiently brainwashed by the propaganda the far right uses to explain why they can't be more popular with the majority in this country has nothing to do with what they actually stand for and how it is rejected on its actual merits (or as they majority has clearly said repeatedly lack thereof).
This nonsense was bad enough when the American right made it up to explain why their open agenda was not more appetizing, and that was in a country with a far more conservative social culture and political nature than ours, and where there was (at least several decades ago) at least a touch of connection to reality for this belief (although that period had already passed or was in the final stages of passing when this cry first started to gain momentum down there back in the Reagan years). In THIS country it was always a farce! Our media has been tightly held by a small group of powerful citizens , be they human or corporate, the natural tendency to follow the lead of the owners is the default bias of any media organ, and in our case they have if anything tended to be biased more to the right if anything, but many to perhaps most progressives aren't so much offended by that than they are in the utter lack of willingness to hold the sitting government to the same standards of scrutiny that prior ones were, since the most important role of the media is to hold those with the power in a democracy to the most stringent scrutiny whoever they happen to be!!!
I gave up a long time ago trying to treat those that believe in these partisan biases/conspiracies dominating the media (individual media organs, that's another thing, take 2008 CTV under now Senator Duffy, he clearly was overtly partisan and not only had his own national daily political show but also ran the network's national political affairs desk which gave him massive power to shape reporting on national politics, which he clearly used to impact the last election with his decision to pull the raw Dion footage from the Murphy interview down here despite that being against normal practice) in this country.
What I do tend to believe about the media is its bias towards being lazy and superficial compared to the past, but that is as much because they no longer get the required funding to do the job as they now have to try to go for the top ratings to get what funding they do get which is NEVER going to produce serious quality journalism that strives to critically examine those in power whoever they may be with detachment and integrity. That is why the corporate media model is so dangerous to the concept of a free and open society/democracy, not because the media corporations owns it so much as because the profit motive does not make for sound journalism foundations of objectivity, critical examination of issues and those in power and how they use that power, and in general decent coverage of important realities that affect us all and provide the context for those that need it to understand when they are being played for stupid by those in power again whoever those in power may be!!!
Post a Comment