Mitt - Netflix documentary

[chiefzilla1501]

Anyone seen it? Really interesting. Between that and his great appearance on Jimmy Fallon's show, I think a lot of people will walk out of it finding the guy to be a really likeable guy.

I think it says a lot about the leftist political agenda of the media...(edited) not to mention the incompetence of the RNC to make this guy seem so unlikeable during the general election.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by jiveturkey

I'd like to see some numbers then.

And then I'd like to know if people are left leaning and seeking out these specific outlets or if they're mindless dolts incapable of changing the channel and believing whatever is presented to them. This info could easily be extrapolated from the number of Infomercial items they own.

Based on my own anecdotal info I believe that people seek out what they want hear, which again leads me back to eliminating the media argument.

Do you want to believe that Mitt was a boob? Head on over the NYT summary of last nights MSNBC coverage.

Is Mitt a victim? Suck on some Wall Street Journal for a bit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ced-after-all/

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

And you're completely ignoring the studies that show coverage of the election was very even.

Yes, that's right. Just like you ignore the studies that show the opposite. I'm not going to get into a battle of studies with you because you can find studies that show whatever you want and you can find a way to dismiss any study that doesn't do so.

For example, what was the study that chiefzilla posted based on? Volume of favorable coverage versus volume of unfavorable coverage? What kind of measure is that? What if one candidate deserved far more favorable coverage than he got and the other deserved far more unfavorable coverage than he got? Isn't equally favorable and unfavorable coverage for both in that scenario actually evidence of bias? How does that study take this into account? As far as I can tell, it doesn't.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by jiveturkey

I'd like to see some numbers then.

And then I'd like to know if people are left leaning and seeking out these specific outlets or if they're mindless dolts incapable of changing the channel and believing whatever is presented to them. This info could easily be extrapolated from the number of Infomercial items they own.

Based on my own anecdotal info I believe that people seek out what they want hear, which again leads me back to eliminating the media argument.

Do you want to believe that Mitt was a boob? Head on over the NYT summary of last nights MSNBC coverage.

Is Mitt a victim? Suck on some Wall Street Journal for a bit.

The WSJ is not a conservative alternative to the NYTimes. The WSJ's editorial page is fairly conservative, but not it's news operation.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

The media had a whole unexamined life to catch up on.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were talking about Obama here.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Yes, that's right. Just like you ignore the studies that show the opposite. I'm not going to get into a battle of studies with you because you can find studies that show whatever you want and you can find a way to dismiss any study that doesn't do so.

For example, what was the study that chiefzilla posted based on? Volume of favorable coverage versus volume of unfavorable coverage? What kind of measure is that? What if one candidate deserved far more favorable coverage than he got and the other deserved far more unfavorable coverage than he got? Isn't equally favorable and unfavorable coverage for both in that scenario actually evidence of bias? How does that study take this into account? As far as I can tell, it doesn't.

I was using the study provided to me by someone arguing against me.

I agree with your "candidate deserved it" statement, and I even mentioned that aspect in my other posts. That's the main reason why the whole "liberal media hates the Rs" is ridiculous to begin with. An R has apparently never done anything that would ever justify 'negative' media coverage. Mitt calls half the population worthless--blame the media! How dare they report the words that he said!

Since you believe that the media hatred or love of a particular candidate can't be measured, you would agree that the right-wing whining about it is ridiculous and they and their candidates should take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming the media for their misfortunes. Correct?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were talking about Obama here.

In 2008 they did. And it was well worth the effort to know every school he attended and every person he ever talked to before he turned 10 years old. Knowing whether he was radicalized by "mentors" at age 6 was important.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Not sure where you're getting that. Anyway, when you say "non-political character issues," I take that to mean 'trivial bullshit.' I'm not denying there was some trivial bullshit. But keep in mind that Obama already went through examination of that stuff in 2008, and then off and on for four years after that. This was Mitt's 1st time as a nominee. The media had a whole unexamined life to catch up on.

Obama has had his share of gaffes. Biden has had a ton. Bidens comments have been far more explosive than Romney, in fact. Obama has made insensitive remarks about the mentally challenged, has had associations with big time race baiters, etc.... None of them got the kind of attention the 47% comment and the binders of women comment got. You have to admit, the media was way too harsh on Romney whereas Obama has had a Teflon coat. Obama threw the media bait to not pay attention to an unfavorable jobs report by revisiting old news about Romney s Bain involvement. The media bit on it and shame on them. The jobs report barely broke msm news.

I don't deny that Romney had more newsworthy stuff to talk about. But its impossible to deny that the media was harsh on Romney in ways they weren't with Obama.

That being said, I don't think that's the case today. I think the media is finally willing to be critical of Obama in the same way they were with Bush and Romney. And by the way, I think their harshness to Bush was justified.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I was using the study provided to me by someone arguing against me.

I agree with your "candidate deserved it" statement, and I even mentioned that aspect in my other posts. That's the main reason why the whole "liberal media hates the Rs" is ridiculous to begin with. An R has apparently never done anything that would ever justify 'negative' media coverage. Mitt calls half the population worthless--blame the media! How dare they report the words that he said!

Since you believe that the media hatred or love of a particular candidate can't be measured, you would agree that the right-wing whining about it is ridiculous and they and their candidates should take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming the media for their misfortunes. Correct?

I've bolded the parts of your post that I disagree with.

1. Republicans have certainly done things worthy of criticism. They get more than their fair share for those things though, while criticism-worthy democrats gets less. Your "that's the main reason why" statement is a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise.

2. I don't believe that it can't be measured. It's like economics. You can do all kinds of measuring, but two well-informed experts using different models can come to diametrically opposite conclusions. That doesn't mean that they're both equally wrong though.

3. The media is a problem for Republicans. Moreso than for democrats because of the media bias that you have problems detecting. It's not the only problem though.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I've bolded the parts of your post that I disagree with.

1. Republicans have certainly done things worthy of criticism. They get more than their fair share for those things though, while criticism-worthy democrats gets less. Your "that's the main reason why" statement is a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise.

2. I don't believe that it can't be measured. It's like economics. You can do all kinds of measuring, but two well-informed experts using different models can come to diametrically opposite conclusions. That doesn't mean that they're both equally wrong though.

3. The media is a problem for Republicans. Moreso than for democrats because of the media bias that you have problems detecting. It's not the only problem though.

At least you've admitted that this is merely your opinion and you have nothing you could use to back it up. We also know where you stand politically, so that surely colors your opinion, rendering it useless for the pupose of determining its accuracy or the actual fairness of the media. This is by your own admission.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

At least you've admitted that this is merely your opinion and you have nothing you could use to back it up. We also know where you stand politically, so that surely colors your opinion, rendering it useless for the pupose of determining its accuracy or the actual fairness of the media. This is by your own admission.

*yawn*

While you haven't bothered to admit anything, no one is fooled into thinking you're the middle of the road guy you once claimed to be.

There is a media bias reality whether you can see it through your filter or not.

[Prison Bitch]

I Watched The New Mitt Romney Documentary With My Wife And It Was A Huge Mistake

The compelling new Netflix film reveals, among other things, the ideal Mormon husband. Thanks a lot, Mitt.
posted on January 27, 2014 at 2:06pm EST
McKay Coppins


It wasn’t long before my every husbandly action was being compared to the extended campaign commercial. When my wife caught me scrolling through Twitter on my phone during dinner, trying to keep up with the frenetic pace of the campaign I covered for a living, I was gently encouraged to follow the example of Mitt Romney, who, we learn in the campaign video, “left his briefcase by the door and … never thought about work again until he left the next morning.” Whenever a spousal spat began to escalate, I was reminded that Mitt Romney was unfailingly sweet to his wife. (“We could never, ever say anything bad about my mom,” Mitt’s son, Josh, helpfully recalls in the video.) And as we prepared for the arrival of our first child, the footage of Romney horsing around with his kids, his tie loosened after a long day at Bain Capital, served as the omnipresent backdrop to every discussion.

“What would Mitt do?” came the inevitable chiding response whenever I failed to live up to the candidate’s shining example.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins...-my-wife-and-i

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

*yawn*

While you haven't bothered to admit anything, no one is fooled into thinking you're the middle of the road guy you once claimed to be.

There is a media bias reality whether you can see it through your filter or not.

Funny thing is how you've gone to great lengths to argue there is no way of verifying that. I guess we'll have to trust your unbiased opinion.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Funny thing is how you've gone to great lengths to argue there is no way of verifying that. I guess we'll have to trust your unbiased opinion.

I didn't say there's no way to verify it. I said we're not going to do it with competing studies that have strengths and flaws that we don't fully understand, and assumptions and definitions that we don't understand and probably wouldn't agree on if we did. I'm not asking anyone to trust my opinion. Coverage is there for everyone to see for themselves and make up their own minds. Some of us will be right and some of you will be wrong.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Funny thing is how you've gone to great lengths to argue there is no way of verifying that. I guess we'll have to trust your unbiased opinion.

I think the opinion makers on both sides are blatherers, though Stewbeef and Colbert have to the comedy chops to pull it off with aplomb. And Stewart has been remarkably nuanced at times recently. Kind of a 'I want government to help, but honestly we keep ****ing it up royally for some reason' thing.

The bias is in journalism, hard reporting. Journalists were trained to show us things that are troubling, then need to change, then we need to progress.

No one wants to go to Rwanda and report on contented people living happy likes [I'm sure some exist in spots. They want to report on misery that needs ameliorating. Only the media mode become bigger government solutions or more spending are how to help. The Sarah MclAchlan save the dogs effect [not that she wants a big government dog solution necessarily, though I'm sure she'd welcome one].

Stories became more and more 'what can we collectively do'

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I didn't say there's no way to verify it. I said we're not going to do it with competing studies that have strengths and flaws that we don't fully understand, and assumptions and definitions that we don't understand and probably wouldn't agree on if we did. I'm not asking anyone to trust my opinion. Coverage is there for everyone to see for themselves and make up their own minds. Some of us will be right and some of you will be wrong.

Originally Posted by patteeu

I've bolded the parts of your post that I disagree with.

2. I don't believe that it can't be measured. It's like economics. You can do all kinds of measuring, but two well-informed experts using different models can come to diametrically opposite conclusions. That doesn't mean that they're both equally wrong though.

Seriously, you're becoming BEP.