Last presidential deabte, was there a winner?

[Minimalist]

WW*

Willy Wonka (meme)

When Phil Rizzuto was broadcasting Yankee games one day his partner looked at his score sheet and saw the notation "WW" for one play. He asked Rizzuto what it meant and Phil said "wasn't watching."

[Tino]

We need to work on our gerrymandering issue too, both parties are really bad about it. Ah, if I had a magic wand... I promise I'd only use it for good!

I like the electoral college but I agree that gerrymandering is a real problem, and we'd be far better off and less divided without it.

As far as winners of the debate, I don't see the point in a analyzing it college-style in terms of who won. The question is did the candidates achieve what they wanted to do, relative to their strategy. Obama wanted to either paint Romney to fit one of two memes that the media could run with - either that Romney's not qualified for the role of head of state or commander in chief, or that he's a warmonger. If either of those had happened the media would be swarming today with those stories, and they'd have legs for more than a week. But Obama failed to do that. Instead the media is talking about Obama's quip about horses and bayonnets.

I think Obama went in planning for Romney to attack him on foreign policy, especially Benghazi. I think Romney saw that that was a perilous course and avoided it altogether, even though Obama gave him 3 or 4 openings to do it.

Romney's strategy recognized that he's up against Obama and a media that is largely friendly to Obama, and anxious to run with one of the tow negative memes mentioned above. Romney needed to avoid being painted in either of those ways, and especially in avoiding a sound-bite that would fit either of those memes. Romney did that, which is allowing his momentum to continue.

[DeistPaladin]

a media that is largely friendly to Obama

The "liberal media" that conservatives keep complaining about is like the Christian's Heaven:
They keep claiming it exists but can never say where or cite any evidence to prove it.

[Tino]

a media that is largely friendly to Obama

The "liberal media" that conservatives keep complaining about is like the Christian's Heaven:
They keep claiming it exists but can never say where or cite any evidence to prove it.

Media Bias is well understood and real. Your claim that it doesn't exist is remarkably ignorant.

Where it exists - in all news media

Evidence of it - I'll come at this from two angles:

1. 4 debates - all left-leaning moderators - the democrat got more time in all 4 debates. Just a coincidence?

2. Note this paragraph from the wikipedia article on Media Bias:

"Media bias is studied at schools of journalism, university departments (including Media studies, Cultural studies and Peace studies) and by independent watchdog groups from various parts of the political spectrum. In the United States, many of these studies focus on issues of a conservative/liberal balance in the media. Other focuses include international differences in reporting, as well as bias in reporting of particular issues such as economic class or environmental interests."

Your claim is that this non-existent thing is being studied by "schools of journalism, university departments (including Media studies, Cultural studies and Peace studies) and by independent watchdog groups from various parts of the political spectrum. "

[DeistPaladin]

First I've heard of any of this. Can you link to any evidence? I'm curious.

I've already discussed with you how the media is owned by six major corporations. They have a vested interest to promote conservative economic policies expected to be corporate friendly.

I've also cited the example through the Bush administration how they cheer-led the Iraq War and didn't question Bush about it until 2006 (Helen Thomas in the White House Press room). Another great example is how they fawned all over the so-called "Tea Party" (not created by Fox but rather CNN). At times, watching CNN, they seem to be striving to be Fox-lite.

I've never seen any evidence of the existence of a "liberal media" but maybe you can provide me with something to review.

[Cato]

When Phil Rizzuto was broadcasting Yankee games one day his partner looked at his score sheet and saw the notation "WW" for one play. He asked Rizzuto what it meant and Phil said "wasn't watching."

Funny. I still like to keep score. My wife and others don't get it. One of life's little pleasures.

Since we're on the topic; denying the holy spirit isn't blasphemous, using a scorecard with printed diamonds is.

[Minimalist]

Media Bias is well understood and real.

Yeah - Fox is a prime example. I keep looking for the liberal media and all I come up with are a few web sites.

The rest of the "mainstream media" are owned by 5/6 whoremonger corporations and their scumbag billionaire owners.

[Anomalocaris]

Well, universe and its facts also have well known remarkable liberal biase. So

Your claim that it doesn't exist is remarkably ignorant.

And the universe and its facts are far better company than FOX news.

So suck it up.

[Tino]

First I've heard of any of this. Can you link to any evidence? I'm curious.

First, didn't we all learn in Social Studies or some similar class in middle school/jr high/sr high that all news sources have a bias that needs to be understood and taken into account when considering a news story?

Given that, I don't know why there is any surprise that bias exists, but here's a study from UCLA concluding that yes, media bias is real. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Med...-6664.aspx It's a tricky area to study, and coming up with an objective means to measure bias is difficult, but I thought the methodology in the UCLA study was interesting.

I've already discussed with you how the media is owned by six major corporations. They have a vested interest to promote conservative economic policies expected to be corporate friendly.

Yes I've seen this in a chart someone posted and I've seen you mention it before, but I haven't seen the evidence that the bias follows the ownership chain. Also, there is money to be made in serving audiences interested in a particular bias, eg FoxNews on the right and MSNBC on the left, so a given mega-company could conceivably cater to both on purpose.

I've never seen any evidence of the existence of a "liberal media" but maybe you can provide me with something to review.

Again, all news is biased. The prominent ones biased to the right are FoxNews, Wall Street Journal (editorials), Investors Business Daily and Washington Times. While not really news sources, the majority of talk-radio is biased right as well, but those are primarily commentators. The rest of the prominent sources, often referred to collectively as the mainstream media, are biased to the left, including ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, CNN, PBS and the New York Times. The New York Times is particularly potent because it has become more radically to the left, and it is the bellwether that most other news sources watch, and take cues from. Since these are the major outlets reaching the majority of Americans, the basic news message most people receive is biased left. If your political views lean left as well, these news sources just sound "correct" to you, because they're reflecting a common world view, so the effect is to take them as representing the "center." However they are biased with a politically liberal view, and the success of right-biased outlets in recent years has been to offer a comparable news experience for the conservative/right leaning audience.

[festive1]

Come on... PBS is moderate, as is the Post (you should read Charles Krauthammer's editorials if you want to agree with something).

---

Me gusta the internet... Behold: Videos explaining gerrymandering and the electoral college, and why these systems suck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9...ure=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k