Is the Media Giving Enough Coverage to Reagan's Passing?

[member 5645]

Enough Reagan!

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/22590.htm

Atleast that's what Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are saying.
These goons can't even let it go until Friday when the state funeral is planned. Totally disrespectful. If people didn't WANT to hear about Reagan, then the news wouldn't be covering it due to poor ratings.

Where were outspoken Rather and Brokaw when I watched weeks of Janet Jackson's boob plastered over every station, including CBS!

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's not the coverage per se that I object to but the lies. Such as that he was the most popular modern president, where Clinton (yes, Clinton!) had higher popularity both on the average and upon leaving office. Eat them apples.

 

[member 5645]

It's not the coverage per se that I object to but the lies. Such as that he was the most popular modern president, where Clinton (yes, Clinton!) had higher popularity both on the average and upon leaving office. Eat them apples.

What are you going on? Popularity polls of a few thousand people?
I'm going to just take a random stab in the dark here - perhaps people are talking about the decision made by the electorate:

Have a look at these apples :zzz:
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1980.html
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1984.html

 

[faust9]

What are you going on? Popularity polls of a few thousand people?
I'm going to just take a random stab in the dark here - perhaps people are talking about the decision made by the electorate:

Have a look at these apples :zzz:
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1980.html
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1984.html

Those links you posted prove absolutely, positively nothing. Here: http://pbskids.org/lions/wolf/ this link is just as informative.

As far as saying a sample doesn't represent a population means
a) you've probably never taken a statistics class, and
b) never done any physics.

In many sciences (in fact none) we don't rely on every sample to develope a theorem. We use a sample. Same thing with the polls. They too use a sample. As point of matter, the Gallop poll has been using the same questions for 50 years giving a very good base for data comparison.

Thank you, come again.

 

[member 5645]

Those links you posted prove absolutely, posivevly nothing. Here: http://pbskids.org/lions/wolf/ this link is just as informative.

As far as saying a sample doesn't represent a population means
a) you've probably never taken a statistics class, and
b) never done any physics.

In many sciences (in fact none) we don't rely on every sample to develope a theorem. We use a sample. Same thing with the polls. They too use a sample. As point of matter, the Gallop poll has been using the same questions for 50 years giving a very good base for data comparison.

Thank you, come again.

Once again, since you all insist on attacking ME.

He said LIES.
I suggested they weren't lies but instead "perhaps people are talking about the decision made by the electorate"

Which in that case would be true.

So faust9, I will tell you the same thing I have told member Adamhominem ... get off my balls.

 

[faust9]

No, you tried to counter a claim by posting nonrelivent information. The contention that Ron was/is the most popular pres HAS been thrown around over the last few days which isn't true. Posting the margins by which he defeated his opponents doesn't support your case.

PS. Don't cry its not that bad. You were shown to be wrong just accept it.

 

[member 5645]

No, you tried to counter a claim by posting nonrelivent information. The contention that Ron was/is the most popular pres HAS been thrown around over the last few days which isn't true. Posting the margins by which he defeated his opponents doesn't support your case.

PS. Don't cry its not that bad. You were shown to be wrong just accept it.

Welcome to the ignore list. I wish zero were still around to prune you, and the rest of the trolls.

 

[selfAdjoint]

WHy what a mature reaction. Want to prune me too? Prune everybody who doesn't knuckle their forehead and acknowledge you as never wrong?

 

[member 5645]

WHy what a mature reaction. Want to prune me too? Prune everybody who doesn't knuckle their forehead and acknowledge you as never wrong?

Wtf? I expained my statement. I got an ad hominem for it.
Pehaps you guys can all attack anyone that disagrees with you??
You haven't even responded to me, but instead just hop onthe bashing bandwagon :zzz:

 

[Gokul43201]

Let's give phatmonky a break, and Mr. Reagan too. The man just died after a fabulous career and a horrible illness, so obviously people want to say nice things about him. That's only natural.

Sure you're going to see conservative media (Fox, NY Post, etc.) showering unending praise upon Reagan; and naturally, the liberals will react to that and say "this is too much coverage..blah, blah."

I say "let them be". How long will the conservatives keep blowing Mr. Reagan's trumpet ? And surely this is the appropriate time for that. Clearly, they (as does a large chunk of the populace...no, electorate) have great respect for the man; for what he did to win the Cold War and give the taxes back to the people. Sooner or later, they'll find there's other important things to do around the country.

Till then, give them all a break.

 

[NateTG]

Atleast that's what Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are saying.
These goons can't even let it go until Friday when the state funeral is planned. Totally disrespectful. If people didn't WANT to hear about Reagan, then the news wouldn't be covering it due to poor ratings.

So, according to you, the news should consist of things like T&A shots of people on the beaches like Baywatch, since we all know that that type of programming brings in ratings? This is an era where the news-media is failing the public by going after sensationalism instead of news. The (former) producer of 60 minutes (unfortunately I forgot his name) stated that most TV stations use the News primarily to advertise their relatity TV shows, and fail to offer any kind of insight on current events. On the other side, the traditional news media is rapidly being encroached on by web or internet oriented sources that provide speed at the cost of accuracy or reliability.

Although Reagan's death is news, and obituary pieces are certainly appropriate, his health has been known to be failing for a long time, and his years were advancing.

Where were outspoken Rather and Brokaw when I watched weeks of Janet Jackson's boob plastered over every station, including CBS!

<G>Perhaps that's because they're lechers instead of ghouls.</G>

Realistically, there were aftershocks for the Janet Jackson boob flash - hasty changes in FCC and and broadcasting policy that were significant in their own right. In comparison, Reagan's death hasn't really led to any substanive policy changes. (Although it has resulted in the reopening of stem cell research debates.)

I'm not sure what all was going on during the Janet Jackson debacle, but the list of current events that currently merit media attention is quite high - the political process in Iraq, the internecine warfare that appears to be taking place on capitol hill, the crisis in the Sudan, the nationalization of land in Zimbabwe, and the upcoming referendum in Venezuela (an Oil Producing country) are just a few that come to mind.

Conversely, the nature of the media coverage seems to make Reagan a 'president for life' and breaks down an important distinction between the office, and the person.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see how margin of victory/percentage of votes isn't relevant in judging popularity. The liberals don't like to talk about it because Clinton got the fewest of any president ever, which indicates that his approval rating didn't translate into votes. He had a high approval rating because of the Internet boom - but I guess the votors knew that anyone could have been sitting in the oval office watching it. Its been a pretty big problem for the Democrats.

High approval rating=we like him...
Low vote count=...but not much more than anyone else.

In any case... Diana anyone?

 

[NateTG]

I don't see how margin of victory/percentage of votes isn't relevant in judging popularity. The liberals don't like to talk about it because Clinton got the fewest of any president ever, which indicates that his approval rating didn't translate into votes. He had a high approval rating because of the Internet boom - but I guess the votors knew that anyone could have been sitting in the oval office watching it. Its been a pretty big problem for the Democrats.

Wow, that's pretty blatantly off. Clinton's second victory carried something like 60% of the electorate, and was considered a landslide by many. (Not as big as Reagan's, but still a landslide.)

If you want to compensate for U.S. voter popluation changes, the president that received the fewest votes - both popular and electoral - is probably Abraham Lincoln who managed to come to office in a an election in a divided country, with regional candidates dominating a number of states, and had to be chosen by the senate after there was no clear electoral majority.

If you're referring to incumbent presidents, then George Bush (41) clearly got fewer votes than Clinton, since Bush (41) didn't even get reelected, although I expect that other incumbent presidents had less successful races.

 

[faust9]

I don't see how margin of victory/percentage of votes isn't relevant in judging popularity. The liberals don't like to talk about it because Clinton got the fewest of any president ever, which indicates that his approval rating didn't translate into votes. He had a high approval rating because of the Internet boom - but I guess the voters knew that anyone could have been sitting in the oval office watching it. Its been a pretty big problem for the Democrats.

High approval rating=we like him...
Low vote count=...but not much more than anyone else.

In any case... Diana anyone?

No, the margin of victory doesn't mean we necessarily like the winner in a historical context, it means we like the winner more than we liked the loser. The electorate vote only shows a slice of sentiment specific to two candidates at a specific time. Presidential popularity polls show the overall feeling for presidents throughout our 200+ year history.

 

[Njorl]

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/22590.htm

If people didn't WANT to hear about Reagan, then the news wouldn't be covering it due to poor ratings.

From what I've heard, the news ratings have plummeted. People are tuning out. Like all obituary material, it was all prepared ahead of time though, so it is mostly paid for.




I was intending to remain silent. I knew when he died, there would be a wave of positive coverage about him. Every good thing he did would be mentioned, every bad thing glossed over, and a few lies, exagerrations and hyperboles would be thrown in. Fine. I knew I would be tempted to correct the blowhards, but it would not be tactful. It is what we do when a famous person dies.

But this is just ridiculous. There has been nothing but Reagan for a week. I remember the deaths of Johnson, Truman, Eisenhaur and Nixon. Combining the hype for all of those would not amount to one tenth of what they're putting on for Reagan. It is unseemly. It is reminiscent of King Lear's daughters describing their love for him. I guess the press believe if they don't debase themselves fawning over him they will be accused of bias.

Njorl

 

[amp]

It also distracts from other happenings.

 

[member 5645]

It also distracts from other happenings.

The funeral ends on Friday. Why get so worked up for the last 24 hours??
I've continued to post other Non-Reagan information with no problem.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow, that's pretty blatantly off. Clinton's second victory carried something like 60% of the electorate, and was considered a landslide by many. (Not as big as Reagan's, but still a landslide.)

The reason this is funny is that the Democrats like to scream from the hilltops how Bush II didn't get a majority of the popular vote - but ignore the fact that Clinton didn't in either of his elections.

It was his first term though, where he got a truly embarassing vote count.

 

[loseyourname]

That's a little misleading, Russ. There was a third major candidate in the Clinton/Bush race that took votes from both men. Clinton beat Bush 43% to 38%, I believe. I don't like being in the precarious position of defending the Democratic party, but they cry because Bush II received less of the popular vote than Gore, yet still won the election.

 

[Zero]

Welcome to the ignore list. I wish zero were still around to prune you, and the rest of the trolls.

You would be the first to be pruned.

This conversation is over.