► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Media’

Obama approval rate 37%; Unemployment rate 31%…

by Guest Post ( 121 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Marxism, Progressives, unemployment at October 9th, 2013 - 12:00 pm

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey

The Fifth Column Treasonous Media have been working genuine miracles here in Marxist Utopian America. During the Great Depression of the 30′s, the unemployment rate reached a staggering 22 percent. Oh for those halcyon days of your when only 22 percent of the nation was unemployed. As Investors Business Daily shows us, the real unemployment rate in America, not the lies that the Obamanation Administration and the Fifth Column Treasonous Media have been foisting off on an unsuspecting American public claim, but the real unemployment rate is actually 31 percent.

The government’s official unemployment report in September showed 11.3 million people, or about 7.3% of the labor force, without jobs. Not good, but not disastrous, right?

Well, those data exclude a lot of people — particularly the millions of discouraged workers who have simply given up looking for a job. So the real unemployment number is bigger — a lot bigger.

In our IBD/TIPP Poll, we ask a different question: “How many members of your household are currently unemployed and are looking for employment?”

Not surprisingly, the answer we get differs greatly from the government’s data. This month’s survey, completed Thursday night, indicated that 47.9 million Americans are looking for work. No, that’s not a misprint: 47.9 million.

Out of a workforce of 154 million, that yields a gross unemployment rate of 31%. Among all households, 26% have at least one member looking for work.

We also find data on “Job-Sensitive Households” — those with one or more people looking for work plus those saying they’re “concerned” about a member of the household losing a job. That number is 31%, up from 23% as recently as April.

Our country’s labor markets, in short, are in far worse shape than you’ve been led to believe.

Government reports in recent months have shown gains of fewer than 200,000 jobs — mediocre at best. Still, experts in Washington and on Wall Street speak of a “firming.” Our data, however, show no such thing.

Our survey, unlike the Labor Department’s, reflects those Americans who have sunk so deeply into economic despair they are no longer counted by the government. This is a more realistic gauge of unemployment, and we are not alone in our findings.

The venerable Gallup Poll’s “Underemployment Rate” — measuring both the unemployed and part-time workers who want to work full-time — stood at 17.1% in September, up from 15.9% in October 2012.

The job “recovery” under Obamanomics is now in its 43rd month, the longest it’s taken since before Truman’s time for the economy to return to its previous employment peak. And we’re still millions of jobs away.

In delaying the official jobs report, the government shutdown may be doing us all a favor by exposing a truly dark employment picture that otherwise wouldn’t see the light of day.

Now, contrast the real unemployment rate 31% with Obama’s approval rate 37%.

AP poll: Obama at 37% approval

Readers have to get halfway into the Associated Press report on its new AP-GFK poll to find this out, but Barack Obama’s job approval numbers have cratered in the shutdown. His overall job approval is now 37/53, and a majority want Obama to start cooperating more with Republicans, as 63% want Republicans to meet Obama part-way, too:

Americans are holding Republicans primarily responsible for the partial government shutdown as public esteem sinks for all players in the impasse, President Barack Obama among them, according to a new poll. It’s a struggle with no heroes. …

Most Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job, the poll suggests, with 53 percent unhappy with his performance and 37 percent approving of it. Congress is scraping rock bottom, with a ghastly approval rating of 5 percent.

Indeed, anyone making headlines in the dispute has earned poor marks for his or her trouble, whether it’s Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, or Republican John Boehner, the House speaker, both with a favorability rating of 18 percent.

The amusing headline in this instance is “GOP gets the blame in shutdown.” However, the data shows that plenty of blame is being heaped on all sides, by all sides:

— Sixty-eight percent said the shutdown is a major problem for the country, including majorities of Republicans (58 percent), Democrats (82 percent) and independents (57 percent).

— Fifty-two percent said Obama is not doing enough to cooperate with Republicans to end the shutdown; 63 percent say Republicans aren’t doing enough to cooperate with him.

Only 30% approve of raising the debt ceiling, clean or otherwise. And despite the best (that is to say, most malicious) efforts of the National Parks Service, more than 80% have had no impact from the government shutdown. That’s not exactly the kind of momentum Obama and the Democrats hoped to generate for pressure on Republicans, and their “no negotiations” stand is practically designed to backfire, if this poll accurately reflects public temperament.

When the history books are written about Obama’s tenure as POTUS, if they are indeed written by honest, objective scholars, then Herbert Hoover will move up a spot to be replaced by Barack Insane Obama as Captain of America’s economic Titanic. More importantly, if those historians record an honest factual and objective record of the scandals that plagued the Obamanation Administration, well then, Obamanation Administration is the exact title that they will attach to the Obama Administration. Their accounting will begin with the phrase, “No Presidential Administration in American history was more destructive, scandal prone, corrupt, incompetent or lied about by the media then the Obama Administration”.

Sadly though, the likelihood of those so called future “scholars” being honest or objective is as much in doubt, as the Fifth Column Treasonous Media renouncing their Leftist Progressive Marxist agenda and once again returning to their Fourth Estate roots and seeking to protect the Great American Experiment. American Academia is perhaps the only institution in America even more thoroughly infiltrated by Marxist subversives than the Fifth Column Treasonous Media, sheltered from reality in their Ivy Towers, they continue to indoctrinate American Youth with the utterly evil and corrupt Marxist Ideology, and are likely to continue doing so for a very long time.

Nazi Propaganda Minister Joesph Goebbels discovered a painful and insidious truth while serving Adolph Hitler. If you control the information that a nations people receive, and you repeat a lie often enough, and their is nobody to publicly refute those lies, then the majority of that nations people will accept as truth, even things they know are lies.

Benjamin Franklin, the father of America’s Fourth Estate believed that a free, honest and objective press was the cornerstone of Liberty and Freedom and that without a free, honest and objective press, tyranny was soon to follow. Joesph Goebbels on the other hand proved without a doubt, that a corrupt propaganda machine masquerading itself as a free press was the bedrock upon which stood every tyrant and dictator.

(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

Are The Dems Going To Lose Their Media Edge?

by coldwarrior ( 170 Comments › )
Filed under Media, Politics at August 22nd, 2013 - 7:00 am

Below is a link to a very interesting article. Please enjoy your coffee and have a read.

By Megan McArdle Aug 20, 2013 2:40 PM ET

Yesterday saw a spate of stories arguing that Republicans are — quietly, off the record — a bit worried about their ability to hold the House of Representatives come 2014. Not panicking, by any means; the electoral map still looks challenging for Democrats. But a mite anxious. After all, they underperformed in 1998 and 2006; what if the same thing happens this time around?

I don’t have a useful answer to this worry, I’m afraid. Still, it does give me an excuse to discuss something I’ve been noodling around for a bit: With the news media landscape rapidly fracturing, should the Democrats be worried about losing their own electoral edge?

Those of us in Washington live in an era of Democratic triumphalism. Most of the Democrats I talk to are convinced that their destiny is almost upon them. To be sure, they thought that before, in 2008, and that turned out to be incorrect. But ultimately, they expect changing U.S. demographics to deliver the sort of rock-solid control of the political process that they enjoyed between 1932 and 1968.

If the Republican Party isn’t worried about this, they should be. But should Democrats be worried too?

To see why, consider Jack Shafer’s excellent article on the history of “hard news” and why it never made any money:

Washington news is a loss leader for most mainstream newspapers. The same is largely true of international and national news. No mass audience is willing to directly pay for such news outside of the one already served by the New York Times (combined daily print and digital circulation, 1,865,318). Even at the Times, subscribers now contribute more revenues than advertisers, indicating that they value its mission more than Madison Avenue does.

Were harder forms of news ever commercial? Gerald J. Baldasty’s book, “The Commercialization of News in the Nineteenth Century,” makes a case clear as spring water that hard news has almost never been a mass commercial enterprise. The American newspapers of the 1820s and early 1830s were creatures of political parties, edited by zealots. Essentially propaganda sheets, these newspapers were “devoted to winning elections,” as Baldasty wrote well before (1992) the Web invasion. Without newspapers, top political organizer Martin Van Buren once said, “we might as well hang our harps on willows.”

Political parties supported the papers financially, and when editors strayed from the party line into independence, the parties would dump their newspapers. For instance, Andrew Jackson’s supporters helped start the Washington Globe after the editor of the U.S. Telegraph, a Jackson loyalist, was thought to have betrayed their cause. Political office-holders steered printing contracts and payments for official notices their way. In those years, members of Congress used their franking privilege to send newspapers at no cost through the postal system and doled out patronage jobs, typically postmaster positions, to their favorite newspaper editors. “Many subscribers simply did not pay for their newspapers,” Baldasty wrote. “In 1832, one North Carolina editor estimated that only 10 percent of his 600 subscribers had paid for the paper.”

Changes in technology — faster, cheaper presses; and more important, the telegraph, the Internet of its day — throttled the monopoly power Washington newspapers held over federal news. By the late 1840s, the hinterlands no longer had to wait days or weeks for federal, national, and international news to be freighted in from outside. Timely news now came over the wire and could be printed contemporaneously with events. All this helped newspapers declare independence from the parties, and as they did many enlisted a new patron, the advertiser, who “preferred news free from unpleasantness,” in Baldasty’s nice construction.Political and international news really came into its own in the early-to-mid 20th century … ironically, because radio and television killed off the competition in most places, turning almost all of America’s cities into one-paper towns. The last paper standing effectively had a license to print money. They spent a lot of that money establishing an elaborate system of reporting norms that emphasized “objectivity” — and building up reporting capacity on the prestige beats. They did this in much the way that companies in another industry might fund a large, impressive building or a charitable trust.

Don’t get me wrong: I am very glad of this capacity. I think that hard news reporting is a great social good. But as the Internet has unbundled news, it has become clear that this isn’t a social good for which many people are willing to pay. Reporters who thought that political and international news reporters, plus a few people who write long reported series about poverty and related “serious” subjects, constituted the apex of their profession, have been humbled to learn that readers considered us a moderately interesting freebie to thumb through on the way to the important stuff in the sports section.

That’s a big problem for my profession, as Shafer points out:

As philanthropists take the seat in the story room once held by politicians, we should be glad. But not too glad, because there will never be enough philanthropists to restore the status quo ante. Nor will the market create enough billionaires like Jeff Bezos who are willing to rescue drowning newspapers like the Washington Post. Wishful thinkers — I’m one — can hope for media giants like Bloomberg and ESPN, now the most valuable media property in the United States, to be persuaded to add noncommercial news to their bundles. (Perhaps ABC News, which is owned by one of ESPN’s co-owners, could be repositioned as the noncommercial face of ESPN.)

If summoning additional philanthropists doesn’t work, can we stomach asking the political parties to re-enter the journalism business? To a limited extent, they already have, with the establishment of Fox News Channel and the retooling of MSNBC. As for me, I’m counting on the winds of technology to blow a fresh miracle through the news business. A Hyperloop for journalism!But what does this have to do with the Democrats, you may ask? Haven’t we gotten off topic?

Why, no, we haven’t. See that last sentence there, about political parties re-entering the news business? I think Shafer is exactly right about where we’re heading. While outlets like my employer, and Jack’s, and maybe ESPN, may invest in commercial news, most of the political and international journalism that we’re used to seeing is going to be ideological, if not explicitly partisan. People will come to the news assuming that the people making it have an agenda — and they will seek out outlets that match their own agenda, if they see political news at all.

This matters for Democrats because, of course, the majority of people in the news media right now are Democrats, whose sympathies naturally lie with social liberalism, government programs and so forth. A more ideological media will be hiring more conservatives, and that will change what a large portion of the country gets as news.

Note that I’m not saying that my liberal colleagues in the media deliberately distort what they report — while I’m sure that happens, because no profession is 100 percent angels, I don’t think it happens very often. Rather, it’s a matter of worldview. During the last election, I took to watching the “700 Club” occasionally because their reporting on elections was so out of step with what I saw on the rest of the news networks. Not because they were broadcasting falsehoods, or because they were uncovering the stories CNN didn’t want you to see. Rather, it was a matter of emphasis. They took for granted that to most of their audience, it actually mattered who had the best pro-life credentials on the Republican side, and they put quite a bit of effort into investigating their records.

The rest of the news media treated these arguments as some sort of purely symbolic issue, like who had the biggest flag pin, unless they treated it as a sign that Republicans were totally out of touch with women. These embedded assumptions matter a lot — particularly for low-information voters who might be lukewarm pro-lifers, but willing to vote against someone if a long evening news segment revealed the guy to be a total hypocrite or ineffective bumbler on abortion.

How much does this matter? In his pretty convincing book, “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind,” Tim Groseclose of UCLA argues that it matters a lot. Here’s how he lays out recent research on the question of media effects:

I) Barack Obama claimed that Fox News caused his vote totals to decrease by 2 or 3 percentage points. = > Media lambda = 2.44 or 3.66.

II) Evan Thomas claimed that the liberal bias of the establishment media gave John Kerry a 15-percent advantage in the 2004 presidential election. = > Media lambda = 3.31.

III) Evan Thomas retreated from the 15-point claim, instead claiming that the establishment media gave John Kerry “maybe” a 5-point advantage. = > Media lambda = 1.10.

IV) UC Berkeley economists Stefano DellaVigna and Ethan Kaplan found that when Fox News was available to a region, this raised the vote share for George W. Bush by 0.43 percentage points. = > Media lambda = 0.87.

V) In their field experiment, Yale researchers Alan Gerber, Ethan Kaplan, and Daniel Bergan found that the vote share for the Democratic candidate was 3.8 percentage points higher among their Washington Post–subscribing subjects than among their Washington Times–subscribing subjects. = > Media lambda = 1.73.

VI) In their laboratory experiment on “strategic information transmission,” Professors Hongbin Cai and Joseph Wang found that the “Senders” sent biased “signals,” which on average were 0.894 units greater than the truth. This fooled the “Receivers” into choosing policies, which on average were 0.282 units higher than they would have chosen if they had known the truth. = > Media lambda = 0.32.13The concept of media lambda is a bit technical, so I won’t explain it here; check out Groseclose’s book if you’re interested. What this summary suggests is that a large number of people, from political professionals to academics who have studied the matter, think that the media’s ideological composition has a substantial effect on elections.

As I say, a more ideological media will probably also be a more conservative media, because there are a lot more conservatives in the donor class, and in the audience, than there are in the media. Which means that this edge will probably slip.

How far it will slip is impossible to say. For starters, we don’t even have a reliable estimate of the edge Democratic politicians get from having most of the media and the entertainment industry in their ideological camp. It’s safe to say that right now this does give Democrats an edge, and that that edge will probably get smaller in the future, unless conservative donors simply refuse to fund journalism for “their side.”

Even if the demographic decline is larger than the edge they gain from media change, this may at least keep Republicans in the game, meaning they only need to peel off a few voters from a few demographics to keep competitive. If I’m right, we may be a 50/50 nation for some time to come. We may also be a much angrier one.

Will the Obama-worshipping liberal media ever learn that this is 2012, not 1982? And that America is a mostly conservative country?

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 73 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections, Elections 2012, History, Military, Mitt Romney, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, Socialism, World War II at July 31st, 2012 - 11:30 am

Newsflash to the liberal media…We have a choice these days! It’s not 1982, where our only choices for news sources were the liberals in ABC, NBC, and CBS newsrooms, and liberal newspapers.

We now have the internet, Fox News, talk radio, and numerous other sources for news that are based on actual facts, and not what some liberal news anchors and reporters want us to believe.

And will they ever learn that the reason they’re losing audience by the millions each year, and, therefore, ad revenue, is because they repeatedly turn-off over half of their potential viewers with their obvious liberal bias and insulting treatment of conservatives on a regular basis?

They don’t seem to either understand or accept that America is, and has been for at least three decades, a center-right country, and that out of touch liberals like themselves are a small minority. The chart below from a recent Gallup poll shows that Americans, by a 2-1 margin, consider themselves conservative, 40%, to liberal, 21%.

So why they continue to turn-off and insult over half of their potential audience is astounding to normal people.

Cases in point: A recent report on CNN about Sarah Palin visiting a Chick-Fil-A restaurant to show her support for the company’s president who had the gall to say he supports traditional marriage and was an unapologetic evangelical Christian…

For the music intro for the report they used the song “Stupid Girls” by Pink, then had the audacity to claim in their “apology” to Gov. Palin that it was just a coincidence that that song was used, and that there was no attempt to mock or insult her. Yeah right. They obviously think we’re all stupid by insulting our intelligence with that idiotic statement, but it’s us who are getting the last laugh.

CNN is just about on life-support due to hemorrhaging millions of viewers due to childish stunts like the one they pulled on Gov. Palin, as is MSNBC, which has become such a joke that Microsoft has finally had enough and decided to cut ties with the nutwork of leftist kooks and losers.

Then there’s Newsweek Newsweak magazine, a liberal rag that’s so pathetic it was actually sold for $1 a few years ago. Not for a single copy, but the entire Newsweak operation was sold for $1! I would have demanded at least 25 cents back myself.

Their new cover is a picture of Gov. Romney with the words “The Wimp Factor” in gigantic letters and asking if he’s just too insecure to be President…

Newsweak did the same exact thing when President George H.W. Bush was running for president in 1988, wondering if he was too much of a wimp to be elected.

Imagine how ignorant a liberal you must be if you consider a man that enlisted in the Navy during WW2 when he turned 18 and graduated from high school, and was a US Navy bomber pilot who was shot down in the Pacific.

They asked this about a man with President Bush’s resume- A war hero bomber pilot, congressman, senator, CIA director, and Vice President of the United States for 8 years, when his opponemt was the extremely liberal wimp Michael Dukakis.

So, to the lib media, if you want to know what an actual wimp in the White House looks like, here you go-

“Not Where You Saw” Director’s Cut

by Bunk Five Hawks X ( 37 Comments › )
Filed under Art, Entertainment, Humor, Movies, OOT, Open thread, Satire at January 15th, 2012 - 11:00 pm

Not Where You Saw” tells the riveting tale of one brother’s courageous stand for justice.

The drama, the emotion, The Overnight Open Thread.