cicerone imposter wrote:From Fox's link (seems her whole thesis is wrong):
The trajectory of the coverage, however, began to turn against Obama, and did so well before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical?-and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself. What's more, an additional analysis of more general campaign topics suggests the Obama narrative became even more negative later in March, April and May.
On the Republican side, John McCain, the candidate who quickly clinched his party's nomination, has had a harder time controlling his message in the press. Fully 57% of the narratives studied about him were critical in nature, though a look back through 2007 reveals the storyline about the Republican nominee has steadily improved with time.
Sorry c.i., but I dont see how the paragraphs you quote prove Fox's "whole thesis" wrong. If her point was that this research shows that McCain received worse media coverage than Obama, then nothing in these two paras refutes that. All it says is that Obama's media coverage got more negative over time, and that it became more negative than the coverage of
Hillary. It says nothing about his coverage being or becoming more negative than that of McCain.
I havent read the info myself yet, sorry, hence why I didnt thank Foxfyre for the link yet. But these two paragraphs that you quote here, in any case, dont prove Fox wrong.
