FYI: There's already a "green screen" video on YouTube from last night speech. It's slightly inappropriate, so I wont post it, but you can see it here. This si the first of many i bet.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fink...ad-msnbc-badges

 

Blogger: RNC Organizer Said Protesters Had MSNBC Badges

By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)

September 5, 2008 - 12:14 ET

 

H/t Kimberly M.

 

Did the Code Pink members who interrupted John McCain's speech last night use MSNBC press badges to get into the hall? Not according to Code Pink itself, which claims the two women "obtained passes to the convention from disaffected Republicans."

 

Right.

 

There is another much more intriguing explanation out there. According to Shay at Booker Rising, which describes itself a newsite for black moderates and black conservatives [emphasis added]:

 

 

I took the shuttle bus back to Minneapolis, and I overheard a convention organizer named Phil telling a convention delegate that the protesters on Wednesday night got through because of media credentials that were traced back to MSNBC (he told her that each credential has an individual bar code for each convention invitee). They suspect MSNBC this time as well.

 

Developing . . .

 

In the meantime, will the MSM—starting with MSNBC itself—try to get to the bottom of the story?

 

Note: At about 12:17 PM EDT today, Rush Limbaugh mentioned having heard about the protesters allegedly using MSNBC badges.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fink...ad-msnbc-badges

 

Olbermann probably flew them in there. This would be about the least shocking news of the day.

A bunch of you have speculated that the intention was actually to use Walter Reed Medical Center but that someone goofed and pulled a picture of Walter Reed Middle School.

 

All I could think was why the hell are they showing us a picture of one of his 12 mansions...it was hilarious though

By the way, I don't think anyone mentioned this part of the convention last night yet.

One of the most enduring taboos in American politics, the airing of graphic images from the September 11 attacks in a partisan context, died today. It was nearly seven years old.

 

The informal prohibition, which had been occasionally threatened by political ads in recent years, was pronounced dead at approximately 7:40 CST, when a video aired before delegates at the Republican National Convention included slow-motion footage of a plane striking the World Trade Center, the towers' subsequent collapse, and smoke emerging from the Pentagon.

 

The September 11 precedent was one of the few surviving campaign-season taboos. It is survived by direct comparisons of one's opponents to Hitler.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080905/pl_nm/...yof_aql6Lhh24cA

 

WOW...I didn't think overcoming Obama's total was possible...I thought Palin was going to come closer...

Did MSNBC give Code Pink passes?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelst...ad-msnbc-badges

 

For the interuption during Palin's speech, the woman removed had been wearing the name tag of a delegation alternate, who says she did NOT give her permission to use her name or anything. Identity theft? Any denouncing from the Obama camp? I mean, they ARE major Obama contributors, and the founder MEdiah, or whatever the hell her name is even meets with the Obama camp from time to time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080905/pl_nm/...yof_aql6Lhh24cA

 

WOW...I didn't think overcoming Obama's total was possible...I thought Palin was going to come closer...

Neither did I. It goes to show the perceived media bias exists in some way, because otherwise, none of us would be surprised. We're all led to assume anything judging popularity/interest would favor Obama.

 

Also, I recall an article through Drudge which suggests more networks carried Obama. Not significant networks, obviously, but BET was among them.

Neither did I. It goes to show the perceived media bias exists in some way, because otherwise, none of us would be surprised. We're all led to assume anything judging popularity/interest would favor Obama.

 

Not sure I see the correlation. McCain had more viewers = media bias?

Not sure I see the correlation. McCain had more viewers = media bias?

Uh, no. The media bias is what made me surprised McCain had more viewers. I'm not suggesting a favorable view of Obama suddenly made everyone more willing to listen to McCain.

 

 

Chiming in here late, but FWIW I was pleasantly surprised with McCain's speech. I wasn't really expecting much. He did a great job of showcasing his humility, a trait we don't see enough in politicians. Maybe I'm a complete sucker, but if any Presidential candidate puts America's success over winning the election, I'm convinced it's him. It's reflected in his life and his voting record. The "Fight with me! Fight with me! Fight for what's right for our country!" lines at the end were especially powerful.

 

However, I do agree with some of the criticism that he wasn't specific enough about his economic plans. He did address it somewhat (and I liked the idea of "splitting the [financial] difference" with a worker losing his/her job while training for a new one), but he needed to be more specific. He also did little to convey the specifics of his health care plan, which he hopefully does in the debates.

 

Uh, no. The media bias is what made me surprised McCain had more viewers. I'm not suggesting a favorable view of Obama suddenly made everyone more willing to listen to McCain.

I don't think we're conditioned to believe there is media bias because its there... I think we're conditioned to believe it, for the most part, because the far right has been using that perceived bias as a rallying call forever.

 

I don't think we're conditioned to believe there is media bias because its there... I think we're conditioned to believe it, for the most part, because the far right has been using that perceived bias as a rallying call forever.

 

There's massive media bias on both sides. If you can't see it, you're not paying attention.

 

There's massive media bias on both sides. If you can't see it, you're not paying attention.

Or, if you DO see it, you are looking for it. And you are looking for it in places where bias will, of course exist (editorials, talking heads, etc.).

 

Uh, no. The media bias is what made me surprised McCain had more viewers. I'm not suggesting a favorable view of Obama suddenly made everyone more willing to listen to McCain.

 

the media's strategy completely backfired.

Or, if you DO see it, you are looking for it. And you are looking for it in places where bias will, of course exist (editorials, talking heads, etc.).

 

Media bias sticks out like a sore thumb on AM radio, Fox News, the WSJ, the New York Times, the LA Times, and MSNBC. It's almost impossible to miss it in those outlets. In other places, it's mixed almost evenly (e.g., CNN).

 

The GOP convention turned out to be very successful. From what I can tell, this was the most widely viewed convention in US History. McCain gave a great speech, I think it really helped him out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080905/pl_nm/...yof_aql6Lhh24cA

 

WOW...I didn't think overcoming Obama's total was possible...I thought Palin was going to come closer...

Ok, so that even caught me a little off guard. So, I got to thinking...

He drew a lot, probably over 35 million, but more than Obama? Probably not and here's why:

NBC got 13.6 million viewers for football. CBS got 6.5 million for Big Brother 10 in the 8-9 hour, and then 7.3 for CSI in the 9-10 hour.

 

So at 10:00, when the speech began, 13.6 people were watching NBC (probably fewer, I guess, since it wasn't a terrific game), and 7.3 were watching CBS.

 

NBC had 8 million watch the Convention, to CBS' 5 million. I happen to prefer NBC's political coverage to CBS'--but not 37% better, especially not if I've had a couple of beers. I would imagine a goodly chunk of those 3 million MORE people who viewed the Convention on NBC simply didn't change the channel. And given the way NBC moved into the Convention, I'm not entirely convinced those 3 million people stayed.

 

Let me try and break this down a little. Ratings are typically done in "chunks". Radio does it in 3-4 hour frames, but TV obviously does it by hour or half hour. So, the "bleed" from football might have been a few minutes, but it technically fell into the 9PM CDT time slot. So, even if all of them turned off their TV, they factor in. I dont know the specifics, but I bet a million or two were statistical anomalies rather than actual views.

 

To back that up, 4.6 watched Obama on CBS and 6.1 on NBC. So, while CBS went up .4 million, NBC went up 1.9 million. That's a big jump for NBC compared to a competitor.

 

Just a thought. Not trying to belittle the speech, just offering an opinion from a guy who had to study the radio ratings system while in college.

Edited September 6, 200817 yr by Athomeboy_2000

Ok, so that even caught me a little off guard. So, I got to thinking...

He drew a lot, probably over 35 million, but more than Obama? Probably not and here's why:

 

 

Let me try and break this down a little. Ratings are typically done in "chunks". Radio does it in 3-4 hour frames, but TV obviously does it by hour or half hour. So, the "bleed" from football might have been a few minutes, but it technically fell into the 9PM CDT time slot. So, even if all of them turned off their TV, they factor in. I dont know the specifics, but I bet a million or two were statistical anomalies rather than actual views.

 

To back that up, 4.6 watched Obama on CBS and 6.1 on NBC. So, while CBS went up .4 million, NBC went up 1.9 million. That's a big jump for NBC compared to a competitor.

 

Just a thought. Not trying to belittle the speech, just offering an opinion from a guy who had to study the radio ratings system while in college.

Would it just kill you if for once your god didn't end up on top?

Would it just kill you if for once your god didn't end up on top?

chill out. SOmething in the numbers didnt seem right, s I took a closer look. That's all.

You can't even give McCain the benefit of a higher TV rating, which means absolutely nothing. Talking about spillovers and counting TV's which may have been turned off, haha. What's funny is after I read the original comments detailing the Neilsen ratings I knew someone, probably you, would find a fault in the ratings system. I was thinking more along the lines of "(insert poll) suggests more Democrats tuned into the speech than Republicans did for Obama."

 

You've become the political equivalent of the frat-boy Cubs fan on this board. At times, very annoying. If McCain wins the election I'm going to have a fun time reading your responses.

 

You can't even give McCain the benefit of a higher TV rating, which means absolutely nothing. Talking about spillovers and counting TV's which may have been turned off, haha. What's funny is after I read the original comments detailing the Neilsen ratings I knew someone, probably you, would find a fault in the ratings system. I was thinking more along the lines of "(insert poll) suggests more Democrats tuned into the speech than Republicans did for Obama."

 

You've become the political equivalent of the frat-boy Cubs fan on this board. At times, very annoying. If McCain wins the election I'm going to have a fun time reading your responses.

It never actually crossed my mind until i accidentally stumbled upon that webpage about 15 minute ago. Then it peeked my curiosity.

chill out. SOmething in the numbers didnt seem right, s I took a closer look. That's all.

lol, you took the time to try and prove that the reason McCains speech had so many viewers was because they just left the tv on after the NFL game. Is there one thing that he or Palin does that you wont waste your time trying to belittle?

lol, you took the time to try and prove that the reason McCains speech had so many viewers was because they just left the tv on after the NFL game. Is there one thing that he or Palin does that you wont waste your time trying to belittle?

I did it because I love doing statistical analysis type stuff. It's the inner math-geek in me. On election day, you'll see me tearing apart exit polls.

Edited September 6, 200817 yr by Athomeboy_2000

I did it because I love doing statistical analysis type stuff. It's the inner math-geek in me. On election day, you'll see me tearing apart exit polls.

Does the inner geek in you only like doing math when it belittles the accomplishments of the GOP?