Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: newsbusters.org
On Thursday's World News on ABC, substitute anchor David Muir brought up the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll numbers from Monday which at that time showed President Obama with a 47 percent approval rating and a 45 percent disapproval rating, the first time in recent memory that his approval number was higher than his disapproval.
Tuesday's NBC Nightly News had hyped the Monday numbers as an improvement for Obama while noting - but downplaying - the less favorable Tuesday numbers.
Who would have thunk it ! :)
Greg....... you approve of Obama. You approve of Obama. You approve of Obama.
Did that work?
So, does saying it enough times make it so? :) Are they going to click ruby slippers and hope repeating it will make it happen?
For anyone interested, Greg did post a link to Gallup.
The trend line (which is what makes a daily tracking poll useful) since mid-October shows Obama's approval numbers improving. Crossing into positive territory is a news-worthy event.
What will happen tomorrow? Next week? Next month? No one knows. We will have to look at the poll to find out.
News outlets are always biased towards sensationilizing stories. This is true when his numbers go up and when they go down.
Who would have thunk it ! :)
When you exclusively look only for evidence that supports your beliefs, you will always be rewarded with what you seek.
Whether any group's poll on Obama is up or down. How is Barry's rating compared to the Republicans? That is an approval, or in my opinion a disapproval rate, the RNC/GOP doesn't want coming out obviously. Anybody care to compare or is this just an Obama/Democrat trashing room?
gary columbus, the right just want you to trash Obama and not look past headlines, or look at the same things bush did.
see like the lowering of our ratings, The GOP likes to harp that Obama was in charge when we lost our AAA status with s&p, totally ignoring that S&P stated the reason for us losing our AAA status was the republicans unreasonable attitude towards taxes when the us has low taxes compared to the world and historically low taxes compared to itself.
Same thing here.. "Look at Obama, he is doing mediocre. 50% like him, 50% dont. BUT DONT LOOK AT THAT TP CONGRESS WHO ARE POLLING THE LOWEST SINCE POLLING BEGAN"
Libertarian y2k, I smack you ! a bazillion times. :)
The article is really about a tuesday show, hyping a monday poll, but ignoring the tuesday poll. As far as Obama going up, I'd say his numbers have stagnated. "52" Oh Ya, "47" Damn, "51" Ya, "46" Damn.
Flounderface;
Most of Congress just sucks, period.
The article is really about a tuesday show, hyping a monday poll, but ignoring the tuesday poll.
Is that what its about? How dare a Tuesday show ignore a Tuesday poll that hasnt been released yet!
That does pretty much highlight how much the article is attempting to make something out of nothing.
News broadcasts tend to report when they can make it sound interesting even if its not. They overreport "records" such as when his approval is greater than his dissproval. They dont tend to report, polls that are more of the same. This is also true for BAD news as well as good. Your claim they only report good news even when its minor, simply is NOT true.
BTW: How dare the news media say anything positive about positive economic news! Are you routing for bad news? Dont you want more Americans to be employed?
a bazillion times. :)
Which coincidentally is our projected deficit in 10 years at our current pace :)
Over the last month, Obama's numbers are, indeed, up when you look at an average (more accurate in my opinion) of several polls as this site does:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Now if you look at a 6 month period, his numbers are more flat.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
A trend requires a defined period of time. Your assertion that ABC and NBC is wrong is meaningless unless you define the period that you are looking at. A trend requires a defined period of time.
Has anyone truly reviewed the polls?
GOP 47%, Obama 39%. Generic Republican 45%, Obama 44%. Romney 45%, Obama 44%.
And since the GOP is paying Rasmussen there is no poll on the Republican disapproval rate.
Now for another opinion. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
And the poll I really wanted to bring to light. http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm
Not one on pollingreport.com has a higher approval rate for Republicans versus their disapproval. Read em and weep righties!
Just seeing if you paid attention to what you read in the article Catch22. It was the Thursday show talking about the monday poll while not saying much about the tuesday poll. :)
Isn't this really a story about a slow news week looking for something to comment on? Maybe the numbers are trending up, but President Obama's Approval/Disapproval rating has not had a statistical significant change since Mid October.
Just seeing if you paid attention to what you read in the article Catch22
I was paying attention, and asked you if you meant what you wrote. There were two shows NBC AND ABC, and the first was as you described. So we agree that Newshound was making much ado about nothing with the first?
As for the second show on Thursday, the media is sensationalistic and lazy, this is not news. They hype records, both up and down, regardless of party or ideology. Its not about bias towards candidates or ideology, its about a bias towards sensationalism and entertainment. New record even a bogus one, is more entertaining than more of the same. Go back and you will find a lot of record stories when Unemployment was rising, and not many of where it didnt move much.
but President Obama's Approval/Disapproval rating has not had a statistical significant change since Mid October.
Lets assume you are correct. That isnt exciting news so all of the networks trumpet the latest outlier or latest record - bad or good.
They hype records, both up and down, regardless of party or ideology. Its not about bias towards candidates or ideology, its about a bias towards sensationalism and entertainment.
Yep. Pretty much what the articles talking about. :)
There seems to be only a few here that caught that.
Yep. Pretty much what the articles talking about. :)
There seems to be only a few here that caught that.
So we agree that the claim by Newshound that the Mainstream media is liberally biased is a myth? That anyone drawing that conclusion from this article is using faulty logic?
That comments like those in 3.3 miss what the article is really talking about due to their own ideological bias?
We agree that you tagging this article under "lying" is a misnomer and that it has nothing to do with "progessives" or "liberals" either? If not, who is lying exactly? Who is the liberal or progressive in this article?
This is about media sensationalism, not ideological or political bias.
Nope. Waffling on the meat of the subject on the NEWS is definitely one sided.
Nope. No faulty logic, just the usual logic based on what gets reported and how.
Possible. , but I'm not that person or any other person. More like most of the comments from both sides I'd say.
Nope. I could change it to "Stretching" if you'd like. Lying is kinda harsh. Liberal/Progressive = no change.
For those who allow others to think for them polls are convenient.
Polls can be self-fulfilling at times.
Conventional wisdom is a safe haven for the mindless and intellectually challenged.
Humans are mimics inherently - we take after our primate ancestors.
Greg,
Your comment in 1.17 is not consistent with your comment in 1.15.
Which is it?
They hype records, both up and down, regardless of party or ideology. Its not about bias towards candidates or ideology, its about a bias towards sensationalism and entertainment.
Yep. Pretty much what the articles talking about.
Read what you quoted again.
Regardless of party.
Regardless of ideology.
Not about bias towards candidates.
Not about bais towards ideology.
The seeded article tries to argue the opposite on each of these, but without evidence.
So when you wrote "Yep" had you actually read what you quoted?
Nope. Waffling on the meat of the subject on the NEWS is definitely one sided.
Why did you write yep and what evidence other than your biased opinion do you provide exactly?
The rightwing definitely pushes this myth over and over and over. Of course, the reality is that the media sensationalizes towards profits, not party or ideology.
Can we agree that there are a lot more self-identified Conservatives in the United States than liberals and there is a lot more money in aiming for the middle or the right than the left?
How exactly is this alleged conspiracy maintained in front of all the stockholders? Are they in on it too?
.
I could change it to "Stretching" if you'd like. Lying is kinda harsh
The article doesnt actually provide evidence of either. Nor does your comment.
Liberal/Progressive = no change.
Not surprised by the position or that complete lack of any rational explaination or response.
ABC also spun the unemployment numbers yesterday into "good news."
They highlighted the fact that the 4 week moving average for new unemployment claims went down again this week. There was no mention that last week, new claims were 381,000 and that was an increase of 15,000 from the previous week.
If you only got your news from ABC World News Tonight, you wouldn't have known that claims went up this week.
--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA
#2 - Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:36 PM ESTThere was no mention that last week, new claims were 381,000 and that was an increase of 15,000 from the previous week.
First, have you reviewed every ABC news broadcast.
Second, news stations tend to report small changes less, precisely because they are less newsworthy. News broadcasts dont generally report every single piece of data.
Third, pardon me for not taking your word for it, but you fail to provde any evidence.
Fourth, they also sensationalize bad news.
Fifth, the weekly reports are not necessarily helpful. Did you also notice that the 4 week moving average is down -5,750
Did you also notice that unemployment claims are lower this year than from the same period last year.
There is a nearly unlimited possiblity of data points to reference.
Do you also include the Wall Street Journal in your assertions of bias?
Jobless Rate Nears Three-Year Low
Anyone who thinks the media only sensationalizes records for good things is simply ignoring reality. Its not about whether it went up a few thousand this week or down a few thousand the next. Right now the general trend is torward improving.
Here's a link to the full episode: ABC Word News Tonight, full episode, opens with story on jobs and false claim about jobless claims.
Here's my typed transcript from the start of the story:
Some encouraging news about jobs and new and promising benchmark tonight. The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits nosedived in the last month, now down to the lowest level since this recession began. ...
That claim was made on the same day when the latest report on unemployment claims showed a 15,000 increase from the previous week. At the time he said it, it was not "now down to the lowest level since this recession began." The claims ticked up in the week before his report, and the report showing that increase was released the morning of this report. By 7pm, you would expect ABC News to know the facts.
@Catch22 wrote:
First, have you reviewed every ABC news broadcast.
Second, news stations tend to report small changes less, precisely because they are less newsworthy. News broadcasts dont generally report every single piece of data.
Third, pardon me for not taking your word for it, but you fail to provde any evidence.
To answer your questions specifically, I have ABC World News tonight selected on my television every night. If I'm home, I watch their broadcast.
Second, this is the first time in weeks that ABC News didn't give the actual number of jobless claims from the report released in the morning. Here are some stories from the previous two weeks:
The number of people applying for unemployment benefits dropped last week to its lowest level since April 2008, the Labor Department reported on Thursday. First-time applications for unemployment benefits fell 4,000 to a seasonally adjusted 364,000, the third straight weekly drop.
New unemployment claims sank to a three-year low last week.
The number of Americans filing new jobless claims fell by 19,000 to 366,000 for the week ending Dec. 10, according to the Department of Labor. The figure is the lowest the country has seen since May 2008.
This report on 12-29 was the first one I remember in a while that didn't give the number from the Thursday morning report. Typically, it's great news when the Thursday morning report shows a decrease in claims, and if the number goes up, the news reports say the increase was "unexpected."
Third, I just provided links to yesterday's broadcast, and to some stories from recent weeks which highlighted the "good news" when the weekly new unemployment claims number fell.
@Catch22 wrote:
Do you also include the Wall Street Journal in your assertions of bias?
If the Wall Street Journal, or Fox News for that matter, publish a biast story, then yes, I recognize that they publish biased stories. I've seen stories with a progressive bias, favorable to Democrats in the Wall Street Journal, and on Fox News. They do occur.
--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA
i guess they see the glass as half full instead of half empty
i guess they see the glass as half full instead of half empty
..or maybe on the other hand, with what they have to work with, maybe the polls are indicating that they see his rivals with brains that are half empty rather than half full? Could that explain the polls?
Let the spin begin.
Look forward to a year of this - the desperation to prop up BO knows no bounds.
prop up? like it or not, Obama's accomplishments are many. the more he does, the more certain media outlets try to make it look like he's done nothing. old trick, new day.
Sounds more like a lot of empty glasses to me. Shot glasses :)
DSKI
You tell em daggnamit! Obama was smart enough to give Solyndra, 540 million to make solar panels, in the United States. Then Solyndra files for bankruptcy. Then he totally redeems himself, and gives Sun Power 1.2 Billion, thats 1200 millions to you, to have Sun Power build solar arrays in the southwest, but instead of Sun Power buying, solar panels from Solyndra, they buy their solar panels from an outfit that makes them in Mexico. Now Sun Power is in financial ruins, and they need more money.
Hope this helps
back to My Tall Iced Tea & Stogey
Look forward to a year of this - the desperation to prop up BO knows no bounds.
Your self-serving psychological projection once on again. Your comment is false on its face and totally unsubstanatiated. Whos "desparation?" From where do you conclude it knows no bounds? Do you believe that people have been murdered? A nuclear bomb detonated to distract? Your comment is again abusrd nonsense. Do you make such over the top claims because you are desparate?
LCS, also offers his typical rants and ravings. Obama did not personally do either thing and once again LCS pretends the President is responsible for everythign bad and for nothing good.
Nope it doesnt help to narrowly focus on two companies as opposed to the entire economy which really was in ruins before Obama came into office.
like it or not, Obama's accomplishments are many
None that matter to the average guy...
like it or not, Obama's accomplishments are many
Yep ! Banks, Car Companies, Big Corp., etc.... all doing well these days.
LCS, and Bush giving 70 TRILLION to his banking buddies was ok with you i bet. they are still partying with that cheese. as i've said before Bush 8yrs was like an oil spill that will take years to clean up. but for some reason, there are some who will still vote for a party that has us in this mess. talk about smart.
Is it better to be skinned alive or burned alive? Hmmm.... seems to be the comparision between Bush and Obama when it comes to their "fiscal" policies.
[seems to be the comparision between Bush and Obama]
[X] BAAAAMP! WRONG!
Sorry DSKI, to me they have a lot more in common then differences. I consider Bush and Obama to be the right and left hand of the same old business as usual bought and paid for government.
DSKI
70 Trillion, really? Honest and for true? I gave you my source the FEC Federal Election Commission, what is yours?
Obama also was smart enough to have us build electric cars, and spent another 500 million, only the cars are being made in Finland. Not to worry, remember the 57 states, we have? Finland must be one of the 7 mystery states. Ooh I luv mysteries. Now, now, lets look at this with an open mind. Remember Obama went to Hartford Univircity, and uh lets us know, about dat Europe is a country, and Eu Clair is a State of our Onion, and Austrian is uh uh langaugae, and we wounit knowd about dis cuz we dinit go to Hartford. Stop uh complanein about uh da democats not reeding the bill uh before dey passem. Pelosi was rite bout not letting us uh read da bill, before dey pass it, cuz we woodnt unerstan, anyhow, cuz uh we dinit go to Hartford Univircity. Hope this helps back to My Tall Iced Tea & Stogey
Greg
Obama has help alot of lawyers make money, with Solyndras bankruptcy, and the the lawsuits against the states, Arizona, Utah, and Alabama, and he personally helped the drug dealers in Mexico, giving them guns to shoot at us, also supplies jobs for doctors, and funeral directors, not to mention the florist. Hope this helps back to My Tall Iced Tea & Stogey
The medias role in news reporting is to play the news not tell it ..... no one likes watching a blow out - which is what the 2012 election will be. The 50-50 approach to reporting news assures plenty of false equivalency and high ratings.
False.
Catch 22:
Your self-serving psychological projection once on again. Your comment is false on its face and totally unsubstanatiated. Whos "desparation?" From where do you conclude it knows no bounds? Do you believe that people have been murdered? A nuclear bomb detonated to distract? Your comment is again abusrd nonsense. Do you make such over the top claims because you are desparate?
Can the psychological projection line. Not only is it getting stale, it's an affront to the COH. Avoid personal attacks. My psychological state is really none of your business.
Now, on to the second sentence. Let's deal with facts. Why is my comment "false"? Where are your facts? It's false according to whom? Catch 22??
From where do I conclude it knows no bounds? All one has to do is watch the nightly news. They could give a comedy act a run for their money. The efforts to prop up BO are so transparent.
The rest of your diatribe is irrelevant - what do murders and nuclear bomb detonations have to do with BO's approval rating?
Can the psychological projection line. Not only is it getting stale, it's an affront to the COH. Avoid personal attacks. My psychological state is really none of your business.
Given your failure to provide any basis for your smear and genearlized assertions about the alleged desparation of others and failure to provide any substance for it, I am just pointing out the logic of your claim. Perhaps you should reread the code of honor, and consider why you believe it excuses smearing many?
Now, on to the second sentence. Let's deal with facts. Why is my comment "false"? Where are your facts? It's false according to whom? Catch 22??
First, what facts? Do you really believe that you subjective interpretation of the news is a "fact" by which you can reliably make your conlusion? By all means deal with facts, and diagram your logic and explain how you arrive at your conclusions? You have not presented any. Your conclusion is unsupported by facts at all.
From where do I conclude it knows no bounds? All one has to do is watch the nightly news. They could give a comedy act a run for their money. The efforts to prop up BO are so transparent.
You cannot logically reach such a universal conclusion from your subjective view of some news. First, that you perceive no bound is not suffient basis to assume there is none. Second, even if someone assumes for the sake of argument there were any there are many obvious bounds such as crime murder, etc.
The rest of your diatribe is irrelevant - what do murders and nuclear bomb detonations have to do with BO's approval rating?
Merely illustrating that you conclusion is false. Notice how that works.
Your whole comment is your subjective fantasy without providing any facts. Saying you saw it on television is a subjective unsubstatiated conclusion. What bounds are there for your asuming the bounds of others?
What do you expect?
After all as far as the "news" goes since they are the ones providing it to you, THEY get to determine what the actual "truth" is.
#4 - Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:45 PM ESTHappy New year sir!
The 'news' have been providing THEIR own truth since there was news. it's only a problem when the news positively represents someone whom many Americans thought they would never live to see become president.
it's only a problem when the news positively represents someone whom many Americans thought they would never live to see become president.
Please....................
I'm not going down that road.
I could say that YES I never thought that I would see a senator who hadn't even held a national office for a year, or ANY office of any responsibility be hailed as some sort of "second coming" and ride the shoulders of the media into the highest office in this country.
That WAS what you meant with that comment, right?
[....ride the shoulders of the media into the highest office in this country.]
it's what got JFK elected. Nixon had it all in his pocket until the media got involved. matta fact, i would think that most presidents used the media to their advantage at one point or another. the difference with Obama is that he was the first person of color to run for office. and no, not the first senator who hadn't held a national office for over a year. :)
is that he was the first person of color to run for office
Sadly I was afraid that was where you were going with that.
Funny I think that Jessie Jackson might be a bit insulted to hear that folks have forgotten(apparently) that he did indeed run for that office also. He may not have gotten the nomination, but he DID run.
Plus I must apoligise I was wrong, he was in the office of senator for TWO years before he was hailed as some sort of "second coming".
[before he was hailed as some sort of "second coming".]
one more time
it's only a problem when the news positively represents someone whom many Americans thought they would never live to see become president.
is that he was the first person of color to run for office
Pres Obama was the "third" person of color to run for the office after Shirley Chisholm in 1972 and Jesse Jackson in 1984.
how about this
Obama is the first person of color to WIN! :)
Pres Obama was the "third" person of color to run for the office after Shirley Chisholm in 1972 and Jesse Jackson in 1984.
Proving that - the 3rd time is the charm - or NOT!
What about Governor Doug Wilder?
let's go deeper
i heard a couple of presidents were "passing" (so to speak). i know y'all heard that J Edgar Hoover was a "PASSER".
TAC I was talking about the office of the PResidency.
What about Governor Doug Wilder?
Second black Governor after Gov Pinchback of Louisiana. Gov Wilder a great man!
Governor Wilder ran for president too...here's his annoucement!
http://classroomclips.org/video/1271
Liberals were getting all wet and excited last week when they posted "news" that Gallup had the Prez on the up and up.
Well, today Gallup has him at 41% approval - 50% disapproval.
They must have done their new polling somewhere else other than DNC headquarters.
#5 - Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:46 PM ESTThey must have done their new polling somewhere else other than DNC headquarters.
Interesting I am seeing him at Gallup at 43% approval and 48% disapproval so I guess you are getting your numbers from reliable sources as well.
Liberals were getting all wet and excited last week when they posted "news" that Gallup had the Prez on the up and up.
That some people insist on ridiculous psychological projection and broad adhomimen characterizations says a lot more about them than those they seek to smear.
They must have done their new polling somewhere else other than DNC headquarters.
Do you assume that polls you dont like are always biased? Your attempted logic certainly suggest that.
Interesting I am seeing him at Gallup at 43% approval and 48%
By golly, it is! I was checking earlier today...
By golly, it is! I was checking earlier today...
I would have to wonder if gallup polls the same people or person/s
Kazutam
Obama was elected 2004 in the United States Senate, however he spent most of his time campaigning for president. If you check the FEC Website, the Federal Election Commission, he was 2nd only to Chris Dodd democrat, in recieving contributions, from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, this was quite and accomplishment being he been in office a short while. Also he is the top recipient of Goldman Sacs and AIG, Leyman bros, and other big insurance, and corporations. Hope this helps back to My Tall Iced Tea and Stogey.
#6 - Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:53 PM ESTShhhhhhhhhhhh,
You're not supposed to let folks know about things like that.
See the "media" spin is that it ONLY the Republicans getting all the money from Wall Street, the banks, and the mortgage giants.
President of the United States, the best politician that money can buy..................
I don't like to burst anyone's bubble, but why don't we wait until the Republicans choose one of their lackluster candidates (probably the flip flop Romney doll) and watch Obama zero in on him and tear him to shreds for being for and against everything depending on which election it is or sometimes even which audience he is talking to. The contrast between the self made Obama and the trust baby Romney couldn't be sharper. Romney couldn't even get nominated last time and now it is probably going to fall in his lap just because everyone of the other candidates is either pathetic or simply unacceptable to the Republican Party base.
You can all have your fun propagandizing about what a failure Obama has been, but when his campaign goes into gear and drums home just how successful he really has been and how it has helped the average American his numbers will return to the upper percentages by election time, especially with the economy improving as it has been ever since last year. As for the indies and the liberal base, they will all wake up and realize that neither of them has any hope at all under the Republicans because the GOP has done nothing to protect them or promote their interests since Ronald Reagan was president. Don't count on Ron Paul either. He has no chance of getting nominated by the GOP and if he runs as a Libertarian he will draw way more votes away from the Republican than from Obama without getting enough of any to make himself a contender.
The current attack on the middle class and the poor by the Tea Party and the establishment Republicans and the Republican governors and state legislatures is being given just as much publicity as the presidential race itself. As we get closer to election time and people begin to pay attention to what really happened to them and who actually did it they will come home to Obama. OWS is just the tip of the iceberg that will sink the Republican Titanic which is tacking farther to the right with each passing day.
#7 - Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:43 PM ESTI always appreciate it when OWS gets some publicity. it is just the boost that the financial markets need to improve
greg
Everyone uses poll numbers to tell the story they want to tell and ignores the numbers that do not support that story.
Fortunately the American people are seeing the numbers that matter, the unemployment rate, the number of people out of work increasing since Pres Obama took office, the falling housing values and the falling numbers in their bank accounts.
And when the really important poll occurs next November, I think we will see a request for a change in the White House
Thanks for the article
Voted up
#8 - Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:58 PM ESTEveryone uses poll numbers to tell the story they want to tell and ignores the numbers that do not support that story.
You would think the "News" would be more in depth about stories like that. They are supposed to report it as it is. Now commentary shows, that's another story. :)
Appreciate the vote Robert.
DSKI
Sorry I forgot earlier.
Hope you had a Merry Christmas, and here's hoping for a Happy New Year!!!!
#9 - Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:57 PM EST"NewsBusters
Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias"
no matter the cost to facts and truth.
#10 - Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:11 PM ESTAuthor: Brad Wilmont -Media Research Center
Its stated mission is to "prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values" and to "neutralize [that bias's] impact on the American political scene.
I just gotta know where and how do you "prove — through sound scientific research", political opinion. just plain disingenuous!
But if they are reporting on "political news", then "political opinion" shouldn't be part of that should it?
Wouldn't "political opinion" be reported separately?
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
