@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
So I need to highlight it as well? I posted it just above. Read it and let me know if I need to get out the highlighter. I honestly don't believe you are this stupid Cyc, so it must be something else.
McG, what criteria did they use to determine whether a comment was positive, negative, or neutral in tone? The link says that they did do this but doesn't list the criteria.
This is why OE's point was a valid one; reporting on positive events that happen to a candidate who is
winning are not differentiated from a candidate who is actually getting approving comments due to their character, positions, or politics. So comments like 'Obama ahead by 6, analysts say big win in MN coming' become rated as 'positive comments,' even though they are informational in nature.
I'd have to see more data in order to make a decision on the study.
Nevertheless, it is ridiculous to claim that Fox is somehow more balanced than other networks, such as MSNBC, who has a former GOP Congressman (Joe Scarborough) on for three hours a day, spouting all sorts of right-wing views.
Cycloptichorn