The New York Times - They're even more evil now
Read a neat summary on Biden’s current voters’ status, that was written for overseas readers like me ( I’m not sure if it was in Guardian, BBC or somewhere else, we’ve had a semi-traumatic night here) that explained partly historically most Dem Presidents have similar disappointing ‘ratings’ at this stage of first term; also it’s more about the populace than his performance - there was soooo much expectation that he could be floating on magical clouds and nothing would be good enough.
meaning: even if every campaign promise were filled on strict monthly schedules with no obstacles, and the pandemic melted away, people would still be disappointed because it wouldn’t be fast enough, complete enough, fix the weather and clean the water/restore agriculture and the wilderness fast enough to restore work possibilities for all right now. Expectation is simply too high, and people want their version of perfection fixed, now.
The article continued that Biden and team’s job is to steadily continue, achieve regular and steady goals then improve messaging before the next elections to maintain clarity and focus.
A comment from me: And forget ‘old’ - Queen Elizabeth is 95, for heavens sake, and still working for her empire every day.
Some copy-editing of my typing, as requesting 
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:
Neat deflection -- rather than explain your apparent inconsistency in buying into one rating (the one you like) but trashing another (the one you don't like), you throw up your hands and allege "complete misunderstanding".
CNN’s ratings: An immediate worry for CNN? Probably.
Biden’s ratings: An immediate worry for Democrats? Debatable.
Vive la différence.
Thin.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
And the fact that you buy into one rating while dismissing another is just another example of how you try to make the world fit into your partisan narrative.
the fact that you think network ratings and political poll results should be part of the same conversation is just another example of how you completely misunderstand political polling.
and, I guess, network ratings too.
Neat deflection -- rather than explain your apparent inconsistency in buying into one rating (the one you like) but trashing another (the one you don't like), you throw up your hands and allege "complete misunderstanding".
also, I have said absolutely nothing about what I think about the ratings decline. nada.
But as usual, your projection comes into play as you make assumptions about what I think about it.
Also, it's not a deflection if I choose not to buy into your poor assumptions.
PVW said:
Subscribers can also gift up to 10 articles a month with non-subscribers.
We're halfway through the month, and I don't want STANV to feel left out, so here you go: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/books/review-betrayal-final-act-trump-show-jonathan-karl.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuonUktbfqohlSVUaBSbfWt8ktVqciObOzaN5jHLiNiGEQDIHweUTCozF8kzRILZ5et4rmi-bQ8AEMrgpTeByx-kaPEV3T0-ovp6A0twjEhkClLiSDCkwzo6fGvcx6yPrZW20b-4hlOLutBzedWHhXqzA1XwhJhJv8pNjaQn52XADlfqVFe9-2sJsnqt0XuAMTjwHYSGJuvjqGk8-bI3ANkeAn1FwD-JJWjjTncqf66YDdmhSClHHRHB-4wUs-Y8WeYNXbOukcUlWKIepiq4RC2drMI-pG5QyIoPUnL9hurTLwgee0dhPPPL32pJj-d552ORs1A&smid=url-share
Thanks
ridski said:
Tedious.
if you want tedious I can explain what goes into an average minute Nielsen rating and how cable TV networks manage their ad inventory.
I know the collective here hates Brooks. I think this one is quite balanced. Curious to hear the response.
joanne, thanks for the longer view. Just one edit, pls:
"improve messaging come the next elections" --> "improve messaging asap and carrying forward consistently" (though i'm sure you could word that much better)
The point was made that, again, this is an historic challenge
mjc said:
joanne, thanks for the longer view. Just one edit, pls:
"improve messaging come the next elections" --> "improve messaging asap and carrying forward consistently" (though i'm sure you could word that much better)
I’ve just realised there are two ways to read and interpret those words: one means ‘a long-standing issue that recurs in similar situations over time’, and the second means ‘so remarkable we’ve hardly seen this happen before - take careful note!’.
The author of the article I read was very precise to define the first meaning, and cite examples of prior instances going back many decades.
jimmurphy said:
I know the collective here hates Brooks. I think this one is quite balanced. Curious to hear the response.
Using the "gift article" trick I see ;-)
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
And the fact that you buy into one rating while dismissing another is just another example of how you try to make the world fit into your partisan narrative.
the fact that you think network ratings and political poll results should be part of the same conversation is just another example of how you completely misunderstand political polling.
and, I guess, network ratings too.
Neat deflection -- rather than explain your apparent inconsistency in buying into one rating (the one you like) but trashing another (the one you don't like), you throw up your hands and allege "complete misunderstanding".
also, I have said absolutely nothing about what I think about the ratings decline. nada.
But as usual, your projection comes into play as you make assumptions about what I think about it.
Also, it's not a deflection if I choose not to buy into your poor assumptions.
you cited CNN’s ratings decline immediately after saying a cnn hed was perhaps the stupidest of the year. Which most any reasonable person would read as cause/effect construction.
If Smedley says he was defending CNN, I doubt either Samuel Johnson or Noah Webster would object to the wording. Now whether it’s God’s work …
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
And the fact that you buy into one rating while dismissing another is just another example of how you try to make the world fit into your partisan narrative.
the fact that you think network ratings and political poll results should be part of the same conversation is just another example of how you completely misunderstand political polling.
and, I guess, network ratings too.
Neat deflection -- rather than explain your apparent inconsistency in buying into one rating (the one you like) but trashing another (the one you don't like), you throw up your hands and allege "complete misunderstanding".
also, I have said absolutely nothing about what I think about the ratings decline. nada.
But as usual, your projection comes into play as you make assumptions about what I think about it.
Also, it's not a deflection if I choose not to buy into your poor assumptions.
you cited CNN’s ratings decline immediately after saying a cnn hed was perhaps the stupidest of the year. Which most any reasonable person would read as cause/effect construction.
well, first of all I would never try to make a case here about cause and effect with one data point.
But yet again, you make assumptions about polls (or ratings) which are short sighted.
Yes, it might be that ratings are down because CNN sucks. However, it might also be the case that CNN is attempting to fight bad ratings by being more sensational and provocative. So cause and effect are reversed from that you think.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
And the fact that you buy into one rating while dismissing another is just another example of how you try to make the world fit into your partisan narrative.
the fact that you think network ratings and political poll results should be part of the same conversation is just another example of how you completely misunderstand political polling.
and, I guess, network ratings too.
Neat deflection -- rather than explain your apparent inconsistency in buying into one rating (the one you like) but trashing another (the one you don't like), you throw up your hands and allege "complete misunderstanding".
also, I have said absolutely nothing about what I think about the ratings decline. nada.
But as usual, your projection comes into play as you make assumptions about what I think about it.
Also, it's not a deflection if I choose not to buy into your poor assumptions.
you cited CNN’s ratings decline immediately after saying a cnn hed was perhaps the stupidest of the year. Which most any reasonable person would read as cause/effect construction.
well, first of all I would never try to make a case here about cause and effect with one data point.
But yet again, you make assumptions about polls (or ratings) which are short sighted.
Yes, it might be that ratings are down because CNN sucks. However, it might also be the case that CNN is attempting to fight bad ratings by being more sensational and provocative. So cause and effect are reversed from that you think.
couple of points, without going into the minutia of what ratings are, and how they are calculated, it's probably important to note a few things. One, the article I saw linked above about CNN was from Fox News. And they left out the important context that all news nets, including Fox were down significantly since last year. Taking a longer view, CNN is almost always down a lot the year after a presidential election. And lastly, the pandemic had pretty serious effects on TV viewing last year, generally increasing total usage over where it would have likely been if people had other normal activities to engage in.
In short, whatever anyone is trying to say or not say here about CNN based on ratings is probably pretty far off base, in my opinion.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
And the fact that you buy into one rating while dismissing another is just another example of how you try to make the world fit into your partisan narrative.
the fact that you think network ratings and political poll results should be part of the same conversation is just another example of how you completely misunderstand political polling.
and, I guess, network ratings too.
Neat deflection -- rather than explain your apparent inconsistency in buying into one rating (the one you like) but trashing another (the one you don't like), you throw up your hands and allege "complete misunderstanding".
also, I have said absolutely nothing about what I think about the ratings decline. nada.
But as usual, your projection comes into play as you make assumptions about what I think about it.
Also, it's not a deflection if I choose not to buy into your poor assumptions.
you cited CNN’s ratings decline immediately after saying a cnn hed was perhaps the stupidest of the year. Which most any reasonable person would read as cause/effect construction.
well, first of all I would never try to make a case here about cause and effect with one data point.
But yet again, you make assumptions about polls (or ratings) which are short sighted.
Yes, it might be that ratings are down because CNN sucks. However, it might also be the case that CNN is attempting to fight bad ratings by being more sensational and provocative. So cause and effect are reversed from that you think.
couple of points, without going into the minutia of what ratings are, and how they are calculated, it's probably important to note a few things. One, the article I saw linked above about CNN was from Fox News. And they left out the important context that all news nets, including Fox were down significantly since last year. Taking a longer view, CNN is almost always down a lot the year after a presidential election. And lastly, the pandemic had pretty serious effects on TV viewing last year, generally increasing total usage over where it would have likely been if people had other normal activities to engage in.
In short, whatever anyone is trying to say or not say here about CNN based on ratings is probably pretty far off base, in my opinion.
I wouldn't disagree with what you've said, though I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that CNN (just as an example) would make programming changes in order to get their ratings back up.
When TFG was in office, it was easy for them to create an outrage of the day by just reporting the truth. It's much harder now and they kind of have to make stuff up.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
ridski said:
Smedley said:
defending CNN
lol
we need dictionary guy to come back and define “defend”
Db is continually whingeing about how unfair CNN (and NYT) is to Democrats. I’ve been pushing back on that. Not sure what the definitional confusion is.
your “defense” has been akin to John Cleese at the argument clinic.
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
And the fact that you buy into one rating while dismissing another is just another example of how you try to make the world fit into your partisan narrative.
the fact that you think network ratings and political poll results should be part of the same conversation is just another example of how you completely misunderstand political polling.
and, I guess, network ratings too.
Neat deflection -- rather than explain your apparent inconsistency in buying into one rating (the one you like) but trashing another (the one you don't like), you throw up your hands and allege "complete misunderstanding".
also, I have said absolutely nothing about what I think about the ratings decline. nada.
But as usual, your projection comes into play as you make assumptions about what I think about it.
Also, it's not a deflection if I choose not to buy into your poor assumptions.
you cited CNN’s ratings decline immediately after saying a cnn hed was perhaps the stupidest of the year. Which most any reasonable person would read as cause/effect construction.
well, first of all I would never try to make a case here about cause and effect with one data point.
But yet again, you make assumptions about polls (or ratings) which are short sighted.
Yes, it might be that ratings are down because CNN sucks. However, it might also be the case that CNN is attempting to fight bad ratings by being more sensational and provocative. So cause and effect are reversed from that you think.
couple of points, without going into the minutia of what ratings are, and how they are calculated, it's probably important to note a few things. One, the article I saw linked above about CNN was from Fox News. And they left out the important context that all news nets, including Fox were down significantly since last year. Taking a longer view, CNN is almost always down a lot the year after a presidential election. And lastly, the pandemic had pretty serious effects on TV viewing last year, generally increasing total usage over where it would have likely been if people had other normal activities to engage in.
In short, whatever anyone is trying to say or not say here about CNN based on ratings is probably pretty far off base, in my opinion.
I wouldn't disagree with what you've said, though I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that CNN (just as an example) would make programming changes in order to get their ratings back up.
When TFG was in office, it was easy for them to create an outrage of the day by just reporting the truth. It's much harder now and they kind of have to make stuff up.
what programming changes are you suggesting they’ve made?
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
ridski said:
Smedley said:
defending CNN
lol
we need dictionary guy to come back and define “defend”
Db is continually whingeing about how unfair CNN (and NYT) is to Democrats. I’ve been pushing back on that. Not sure what the definitional confusion is.
how is offering proof "whingeing"?
oh, it's not.
You’ve cherry-picked a handful of articles, each of which was debatable at best as to whether there was any anti-Dem bias.
And you lol’d when I posted an independent assessment that CNN *overall* (ie not from just cherry-picked articles) is left-leaning.
And you say you offered “proof”?
Now THAT’S lol!
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
ridski said:
Smedley said:
defending CNN
lol
we need dictionary guy to come back and define “defend”
Db is continually whingeing about how unfair CNN (and NYT) is to Democrats. I’ve been pushing back on that. Not sure what the definitional confusion is.
your “defense” has been akin to John Cleese at the argument clinic.
at least db openly states his opinion on this issue — you snipe without ever stating your opinion.
So let me ask. Do you believe CNN and/or NYT is biased against democrats?
Yes or no.
If you can’t directly answer the question one way or the other, please cease sniping. You’re better than that.
Smedley said:
You’ve cherry-picked a handful of articles, each of which was debatable at most as to whether there was any anti-Dem bias.
And you lol’d when I posted an independent assessment that CNN *overall* (ie not from just cherry-picked articles) is left-leaning.
And you say you offered “proof”?
Now THAT’S lol!
those articles are only "debatable" to you because you believe the media is an honest broker. You, in fact, refuse to accept any anti-Dem bias in the media, as far as I've seen so far.
as for LOL, your clinging to charts that rank every major outlet across a handful of buckets is what's hilarious. I guess those are useful for people who don't want to do their own analysis.
You don't even know how those ratings are arrived at. Yet because they're on the internet, you accept them.
Good job.
Smedley said:
at least db openly states his opinion on this issue — you snipe without ever stating your opinion.
So let me ask. Do you believe CNN and/or NYT is biased against democrats?
Yes or no.
If you can’t directly answer the question one way or the other, please cease sniping. You’re better than that.
I've written a lot in this thread and others on the biases in all of mainstream political coverage -- both siderism, conventional wisdom, laziness, etc. that apply to most outlets, including CNN. When the two political parties are not symmetrical and one is bat **** crazy it disadvantages the sane party (i.e., Democrats). Just because I don't want to get in the middle of two guys' tedious and idiotic dispute doesn't mean I haven't otherwise made my point here.
This apparently got mostly overlooked I guess. But this is a good explanation of how regardless of the intent of the coverage the result in 2021 of most U.S. political commentary is that it is biased in favor of the Republican Party and against the Democratic Party.
ml1 said:
They file the occasional story illustrating how the modern Republican Party has become anti-democracy, race-baiting, violence-inciting, shameless, and untethered to reality. They report that its leaders defend the violent Jan. 6 coup attempt and are preparing to invalidate or dispute electoral defeats in the future. They observe the party’s appeals to white supremacy and grievance. They describe Donald Trump as a conspiracy theorist who would be unlikely to respect any limits if returned to office. They sometimes point out that the Republican agenda, such as it is, consists only of legislative hostage-taking, lies, denial, obstruction, and division.
The inescapable conclusion is that if this Republican Party wins back control of even one house of Congress, they will grind governing to a halt — and that, if they win the presidency again, democracy as we know it may well no longer exist.
Meanwhile, these same political journalists are also handicapping the 2022 and 2024 elections as if things were normal — as if it were still just a choice between two equally legitimate political parties, rather than a referendum on whether the government should be allowed to function, whether the people should be allowed to pick their leaders in the future, and whether white Christian nationalism formally replaces pluralism as the country’s organizing principle.
Indeed, they are calmly — even confidently — predicting Republican victories, certainly in 2022, based on polling and historical trends. They take as a given that there will be, as usual, an energetic backlash against the ruling party. They note all the causes for dissatisfaction with Democrats. And they consider it inconceivable that the public might somehow hold Republicans accountable for their transgressions and the threat they pose to traditional American values.
(They certainly don’t consider that the media itself contributes to that lack of accountability – first, by not aggressively pursuing it, then by assuming it will never happen.)This is what a few of us are trying to point out about why the political coverage is so bad. And why the "horse race" punditry hurts the country.
Handicapping the midterm elections?
Click to Read More
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
Advertisement
PVW