To: jazusamo
During the entire first calendar year of his administration, Mr. Obama's mainstream media coverage was almost "perfectly balanced" — he rated 49 percent positive and 51 percent negative evaluations by sources and reporters. Excuse me?
3 posted on
01/26/2010 11:04:57 AM PST by
ClearCase_guy
(We have the 1st so that we can call on people to rebel. We have 2nd so that they can.)
To: ClearCase_guy
Tell that moron to get real. Balanced? No Fn way.
4 posted on
01/26/2010 11:07:25 AM PST by
dumpthelibs
(dumpthelibs)
To: ClearCase_guy
“By Sources” must mean bloggers and posters (including every negative comment on FR about BO.
9 posted on
01/26/2010 11:09:34 AM PST by
for-q-clinton
(If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
To: ClearCase_guy
It makes you wonder what they consider negative. Not openly gushing and drooling and more “nuanced” praise instead?
10 posted on
01/26/2010 11:10:00 AM PST by
secret garden
(Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.)
To: ClearCase_guy
You mean the CMPA isn’t balanced? /sarc
I do believe his media praise is going to start taking a hit.
12 posted on
01/26/2010 11:11:58 AM PST by
jazusamo
(But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
To: ClearCase_guy
Balanced?
All news vs. FOX I guess= balanced?
31 posted on
01/26/2010 11:48:03 AM PST by
Freddd
(CNN is not credible.)
To: ClearCase_guy
This guy was dropped on his head as a baby. 49/51?
I would say, 80/20 and not like, excluding talk radio, Washington Times and Fox.
34 posted on
01/26/2010 11:57:59 AM PST by
wac3rd
(Felipe Calderon supports the public option.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson