Sarah Palin's speech - Page 12

Koukla72 · 09-06-2008, 05:41 PM

Edited due to a cyberstalker. Sorry, guys.

09-06-2008, 05:42 PM

I'm almost leaning towards not voting the more I learn. I'm none too pleased 100% with either candidate. Of course, I will vote and it is still too early to decide without learning more. Thank you for the links.

bbbecca · 09-06-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koukla72

Quote:

Originally Posted by keikok

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbecca

The PBS numbers are not legitimate, and Nielsen has said so
"PBS's numbers are based on overnight ratings, not final national ratings, and include only the 56 metered markets, which do not cover the entire TV universe."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090503406.html
PBS said it had what, 4 million viewers? Hard to believe from a station that struggles to get 1 million.
Adding PBS's "numbers" to the Nielsen ratings is like adding dirty water to clean water, even though their both water, it's not good enough to drink. You should always read the complete article before you write about it (if you would have read the Huffington Post article in it's entirety you would have seen that they don't add any PBS estimates to the legitimate numbers). Either way, it's safe to say more people watched the RNC than the DNC.

I noticed how PBS released those estimates right after FOX and the hollywood reporter said that 500,000 more people watched the RNC. Great spin job on PBS's part. My respect for that channel just went way down.

Bbbecca, Neilsen has not said the numbers are not legitimate, it has said it can't vouch for them - which is only ethical, considering they're not estimates Neilsen has compiled (since it wasn't paid to), and they're estimates that have been compiled in a different manner than Neilsen does. The Washington Post story you link this time was not discounting the PBS numbers, it was giving a full accounting of all the numbers. Numbers you gave no indication of in your initial post of the story aired on the Fox channel. I conceed it would have been better of me to use a link that fully did the same, but my point was not the story itself, it was Fox's obscuring of it; that even that very rudimentary story gave an effort to include all the pertinent information while Fox didn't. Something you are still choosing not to address.

Either the Fox channel didn't report all the numbers, which other more ethical news organizations are doing, or you didn't reflect all of them in your post here. Like you didn't bother to quote the full section of that Washington Post article that pertains to the aspect of the story of full viewership, and that gives a more reasoned view of PBS's statistics in combination with Nielsen's.

Quote:

McCain's and Palin's speeches were covered by fewer networks than Obama's. The Democratic convention was covered by BET and TV One, two networks targeting African American viewers, which did not provide live coverage of the GOP convention speeches.

Obama's and McCain's speeches were covered live on Spanish-language networks Telemundo and Univision; Palin's was not.

On the other hand, Nielsen gave McCain and Palin the advantage of a larger sandbox in which to play than the one the Democrats got one week earlier.

Nielsen's updated universe estimates -- a.k.a. the number of TV households in the country -- took effect on Monday. That TV universe grew by nearly 2 million homes, which adds substantially to the number of actual viewers in the pool.

None of the numbers given out by Nielsen during either convention (and reported in The TV Column) included PBS coverage of the two confabs.

The public television station has been sending out its own viewer estimates, but Nielsen says it cannot vouch for those numbers. PBS's numbers are based on overnight ratings, not final national ratings, and include only the 56 metered markets, which do not cover the entire TV universe.

So who's spinning, bbbecca - Fox or you?

Keikok - do you have a source for the information that PBS only released its numbers after Fox reported Nielsen's? I haven't been able to find one, and my impression was that both PBS and Nielsen had numbers available after both conventions' speeches.I thought that was backed up by the way the Washington Post said, "The public television station has been sending out its own viewer estimates..." above.

The article explains why Nielsen cannot vouch for PBS, because PBS estimates only cover 56 metered markets (I wrote this in the last post that I wrote). The only people who I have seen that have chosen to add PBS's numbers to the Nielsen ratings are the San Francisco Chronicle, which did so in a very short article that obviously used other sources, and you when you chose to cite that article. Instead of using one of the other articles which clearly separates the two estimates based on their validity, you used information from a short overview article.
When the news reports televison ratings (as seen here http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/ ) they only use the Nielsen ratings. It is completely understandable that a news program would only talk about these ratings, because that's what they normally do. I dont know why PBS chose not to pay for it (I believe they have bought these ratings in the past) or why they chose to do their own ratings count or why then they decided to share it with the world. I do know that more people watched the RNC on the major networks, and that is all I can say for sure.

bbbecca · 09-06-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keikok

I noticed how PBS released those estimates right after FOX and the hollywood reporter said that 500,000 more people watched the RNC. Great spin job on PBS's part. My respect for that channel just went way down.

Well it looks like youre not the first to criticise them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pbs#Pol...eological_bias
I'm pretty surprised since I always thought PBS was known for being neutral.

bbbecca · 09-06-2008, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedCatWaves

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speckla

Thank you. I am, unfortunately, quite ignorant about many things that have happened in recent years. Well, no more, because I'm reading and learning all I can. Do you know of any links in reguards to this?

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCan...25537020080901

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

Dont forget to read this speckla.
http://senateconservatives.com/2008/...ge-to-nowhere/

Koukla72 · 09-06-2008, 08:52 PM

Edited due to a cyberstalker. Sorry, guys.

Koukla72 · 09-06-2008, 10:38 PM

Edited due to a cyberstalker. Sorry, guys.

bbbecca · 09-06-2008, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koukla72

You did not write that, you are only regurgitating my clarification of it. You wrote that PBS's numbers are not legitimate as your own assertion, and claimed that Nielsen said what you quoted, as backing that up. You misrepresent both the tenor of the Post's article and misattributed the quote. It was the Post writer who offered up the information you quoted as further information on how PBS compiles its statistics compared to how Nielsen does, and not Nielsen using it as supposed proof PBS's numbers should be discounted.

I dont think I'm resposible for "tenor" but the fact is that the Post stated that PBS uses different methods than Nielsen. I don't have an opinion on whether or not PBS's numbers should be shown, but I do know that they should not be added to Nielsen's numbers. They don't use the same methods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koukla72

The only people who I have seen that have chosen to add PBS's numbers to the Nielsen ratings are the San Francisco Chronicle, which did so in a very short article that obviously used other sources, and you when you chose to cite that article. Instead of using one of the other articles which clearly separates the two estimates based on their validity, you used information from a short overview article.

I've already addressed this: "I conceed it would have been better of me to use a link that fully did the same, but my point was not the story itself, it was Fox's obscuring of it; that even that very rudimentary story gave an effort to include all the pertinent information while Fox didn't."
[/quote]
My point is that Fox didn't obscure anything. PBS's less accurate estimate is about as "pertinent" as how many contstruction workers in the Scranton area watched it via portable television through analog signal. For example, a 4 - day program that PBS called "successful" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/ar...on/17mcgr.html) was watched by about 7.3 million people. This was their most successful program in 10 years, and it's viewers were not even close to FOX's viewers for the RNC, which had about 2 million more viewers. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_124533.html).
PBS claims it had 4 million viewers during the DNC (which is less than 50% of FOX's viewers during the RNC), on average its primetime shows received a 1.7 primetime Neilsen rating (http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_corp_audience.html) during 2004-2005. The average for stations like FOX and ABC is about 3.0 (http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/08/r...ts_fox_abc.php). This is more than 175% of PBS viewers for 2004-2005, and their ratings have since dropped dramatically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koukla72

And by the way, are you not aware that most news sources get many of their stories from either the Associated Press or Reuters news wires, and then repost them with credit? Your continued implication that the report should be discounted on that basis is unfounded.

Yes I am aware of that. If the San Francisco chronicle wants to take information from the AP then they can do that (as they did), and it's not surprising that they would change/condense the information in a misleading way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koukla72

So are you talking about Fox news now or televised news in general, or all news media - including print, radio, and internet? If you're talking about all news media, that's obviously false. The links you yourself started posting, after I pointed out Fox didn't report all of the numbers, show many news organizations reporting more that just the Nielsen ratings, from full accounting of all the numbers to at least pointing out that the Nielsen numbers don't include PBS or other channels, like the LA Times did. If it's just network news organizations you're referring to, that's also false. (I'm bolding the following just so you don't miss it.) ABC reported PBS's numbers while stating that their numbers are less precise. And then they added them up.

You're flat out wrong that all the major news networks don't use Nielsen ratings (they do-http://www.tvweek.com/ratings/). They subscribe to them every week, as they are the most respected ratings for television.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koukla72

"Nielsen said that 38.9 million people watched McCain accept the GOP nomination Thursday on either ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel or MSNBC. PBS, which has a more imprecise estimate based on samples in a few big cities, said 3.5 million watched on its network. Last week, Obama's speech in Denver was seen by 38.4 million on 10 different commercial networks, and an additional 4 million on PBS. Add it up, and that's McCain, 42.4 million, to Obama, 42.4 million. No one can really tell who truly had the biggest audience, since C-SPAN also showed the speeches, and Nielsen doesn't measure the cable channel's viewers. But if the presidential vote is this close on Nov. 4, it will be a long night."

The part in bold is really the main argument. It shows that they got the numbers 3.5 and 4 million from using just a few small samples in big cities. If you've read how ratings are normally done (I'm assuming you don't read everything that you post because of a lot missing information/wrong information that you write) you would see that this is NOT the widely accepted procedure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koukla72

I said initially that I don't watch any televised news because it's almost all sensationalist and inaccurate. I used Fox news as the best and most extreme example of that and used the incomplete numbers you posted here as an example of that. If you had claimed CBS (for example) reported the same thing, it would still have been an incomplete and consequently misleading story as you related it. You have done nothing to prove Fox didn't spin the story by claiming a few other news organizations were right to not report all of the numbers as well.

Quote:

I dont know why PBS chose not to pay for it (I believe they have bought these ratings in the past) or why they chose to do their own ratings count or why then they decided to share it with the world. I do know that more people watched the RNC on the major networks, and that is all I can say for sure.

I don't know either. I don't actually care, much. The numbers themselves are not. the. point. You continue to miss the point. My point was not to dispute the possibility that the Republicans may have won some sort of sad little contest as to who won the most viewers as an indication of who might get the most votes. There were a lot of viewers from both camps watching both conventions. Frankly, as a liberal, I hope as many people as possible saw Palin's ugly demeanor and lack of substance and disturbing religious fervor, and McCain's inability to do more than parrot the party line that got us into this mess and try to call it "change". As well as the flubs and gaffes that continue to plague their campaign so far and cast doubt on how they can run a country when they can't run a smooth convention - showing a backdrop of Walter Reed Middle School instead of Walter Reed Hospital, showing a backdrop of a cemetery while the speaker was trying to claim victory in Iraq (disclaimer, didn't see this one personally), fear mongering by milking 9/11 yet again with that montage, and so on.

Fox news airs misleading stories. No news organization is infallible, or completely neutral and there's definitely a spectrum of neutrality on which all news organization fall. But most at least try for neutrality and accuracy, with varying success. Fox does not, and its record as well as this particular small instance show that. If it does try, then it consistently fails miserably.

And so, now that it's aaaaaaallll been broken down, again: When you say your main news source is an organization with as obvious and biased an agenda as Fox's because you find that easiest, and you use Fox as a source for incomplete or inaccurate assertions, you lose credibility with people who know enough to actually cross-check reports.

Well in this case I certainly hope people don't get their information from you, since it includes good data mixed in with bad data. That's not how I chose to get my news. I don't ONLY watch FOX news, and I never said that I did, but it seems like it's necessary when all the other stations are so blatantly biased, PBS being the worst.

bbbecca · 09-06-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koukla72

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbbecca

Quote:

Originally Posted by keikok

I noticed how PBS released those estimates right after FOX and the hollywood reporter said that 500,000 more people watched the RNC. Great spin job on PBS's part. My respect for that channel just went way down.

Well it looks like youre not the first to criticise them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pbs#Pol...eological_bias
I'm pretty surprised since I always thought PBS was known for being neutral.

PBS is known for being about as neutral as human beings can manage to be, I guess. That last link I posted above shows they're at least much better than most broadcast media at neutrality and accuracy. But I don't think that necessarily means there isn't a constant push-pull, or that there's never criticism of them, or that they're perfect. This is an interesting article I came across a while ago giving a little more detail about the issues that Wiki link alludes to.

Hmmm maybe the whole paragraph that began with "Many viewers perceive it to have a liberal bias and criticize its tax-based revenue and have periodically but unsuccessfully attempted to discontinue funding of CPB" just went right over your head. The article that you posted doesn't give much in the way of facts, although it does reinforce the idea that there were former employees who were concerned about the biased, liberal direction the company was taking.

Koukla72 · 09-07-2008, 02:27 AM

Edited due to a cyberstalker. Sorry, guys.

asleep to audio · 09-07-2008, 10:15 AM

A little off topic, but this is hilarious.

g-stringranny · 09-07-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asleep to audio

A little off topic, but this is hilarious.

This cracked me up....

"How would you like this pit bull grandma to clean your grandfather clock?” she’ll tell President McCain in her flat “Fargo” accent. He’ll confide in his pal Joe that being a P.O.W. was nothing compared with being trapped in the White House with “that woman.”

RedCatWaves · 09-07-2008, 10:31 AM

Quote:

And the head of your Abstinence Outreach Program, Levi Johnston, has failed to force any other teenage fathers to marry their prom dates.

Too funny...I'd almost laugh if it wasn't so prescient.

Anyone notice that Sarah Barracuda has hardly any education? Six colleges in six years...do you really think she learned anything other than how to count and transfer her credits?

CurlyCurlies · 09-07-2008, 10:35 AM

Can someone copy and paste the article? Thanks!

CurlyEyes · 09-07-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

You know what I’m thinking, because you’re thinking it, too.

If Barack Obama had chosen Hillary Clinton as his running mate, we would now be looking forward to the greatest night in the history of American politics: the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate between Ma Barker and Sarah Barracuda.

Now, alas, we’ll have to wait until 2012 when the two fiercest competitors on the trail will no doubt face off in the presidential debate, with Palin still riding high from her 2008 field-dressing of Obama (who’s now back in the Senate convening his subcommittee on Afghanistan).

The two women are both aggressive pols who take disagreement personally, accruing a body count of rivals, and who have been known to exaggerate their accomplishments. But in ideological terms, the gun-toting hockey mom and the shot-swilling Warrior Queen of the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits are opposites.

By 2012, the 76-year-old John McCain will be on his way out. His vice president will wear him down, making him change the name of the White House to Rouge Cou — the name Sarah licensed in 2005 in case she ever got into business — and turn Camp David into a caribou hunting ranch. Then she’ll scare him, informing him that if he tries for a second term, she’ll challenge him in the primary.

“How would you like this pit bull grandma to clean your grandfather clock?” she’ll tell President McCain in her flat “Fargo” accent. He’ll confide in his pal Joe that being a P.O.W. was nothing compared with being trapped in the White House with “that woman.”

It’s delicious imagining the Debate of the Century between Big Mama, as Bill’s male aides called Hillary, and “Hottie Granny,” as People magazine will doubtless dub Sarah. ESPN will want in.

PALIN: Before we start, Hillary, I want to honor your achievement in 2008. You nicked the glass ceiling. But in the end, as my friend Cheryl Metiva from Wasilla Bible Church said, I was more of a woman and more of a man than you, so I was the one who actually busted up the old boys’ club. Sorry I called you a whiner about sexism. That was before I realized how handy the victim card can be against the press wolves. In Alaska, we just gun down wolves from the air.

CLINTON: I do give you and John credit, Sarah, for following my blueprint to reveal Obama as all cage, no bird. But now the Democrats have crawled back to me and I will close the deal. So pack up your snow boots and antlers and backwoods brood and scram.

PALIN: I’ve got a little news flash for you, Hillary. Your night-shift, blue-collar-waitress, boilermaker routine didn’t fool me. It’s in your polls but it’s in my D.N.A. I’ve actually been up at 3 a.m. — gutting moose. While you got to go to your snooty Wellesley, I had to switch colleges six times in six years. While you got to go to Yale Law, I had to enter beauty contests and turn my back to judges in a bathing suit to get scholarship money.

CLINTON: I’ve got a little news flash for you, Annie Oakley. Dinosaurs disappeared a lot longer than 4,000 years ago. I admit you’ve had a profound influence on America, and I’m not just talking about all the women wearing up-dos and rimless titanium $375 Kazuo Kawasaki designer frames. You and John are now at war with four countries — Russia, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, even as Osama bin Laden has opened a storefront in a strip mall in Pakistan to make TV ads.

PALIN: Those wars are tasks from God.

CLINTON: You said you wanted to help women, but you’ve only hurt them with your silly mantra that women can have it all if they just work harder and pray harder. You put Medicare on eBay. You cut funding for special-needs children. The Dobson Supreme Court has outlawed abortion, evolution and gun control. With sex education banned, baby bumps in high schools are rampant. And the head of your Abstinence Outreach Program, Levi Johnston, has failed to force any other teenage fathers to marry their prom dates.

PALIN: Life is always welcome. Unless it’s on four legs.

CLINTON: When it comes to Big Oil, you make Dick Cheney look small bore. You had secret energy meetings to eliminate polar bears. You’ve turned Alaska into Kuwait without the sand. Gas is $50 a gallon and global warming has changed the Rose Garden into the Palm Court. Your only energy plan is to give tax credits to people who put do-it-yourself oil rigs in their backyards. You created a Department of Drilling and More Drilling and put double-dipping Todd in charge.

PALIN: You’re chiding me about nepotism? At least I know how to control my First Dude. If you think that fake sniper fire in Bosnia was bad, wait till you get a load of my hunting rifle.

CLINTON: Adios, Sister Sarah. You’re tough, but I’ve been tougher longer. Slide out of town on that oil slick you made on the Mall. And take that Grizzly throw with you.

i

fig jam · 09-07-2008, 10:50 AM

Never mind -- wasn't fast enough!

Oh, Tilly, yes, that's a Border colllie pup, and I agree they're the best dogs! I have two!

Back to unpleasantness of politics . . . .

I have to say six colleges in six years is a bit of a character issue right there . . . This woman does NOT impress me with anything she's said or done.

And, yes, we all need to remember she's just, as they say, a heartbeat away from being president if she ends up VP. It seems an unimportant job until something happens to the president, and we don't have to look far back in history to know how easily that can happen.

bbbecca · 09-07-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koukla72

And the Wiki. Aw. That's so cute. You seem to think that Wikipedia page's single paragraph of information and claims can be considered more factually reliable, or even just equally reliable, to a fully researched three page article from an established journalist, in a reasonably well-respected online magazine/journal.

Sorry I didn't find your 3-page article very informative, maybe I just have higher standards, or maybe 1 article just isn't enough for me.
Here's some more:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lyndsi-...as-campaign-08
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...6/152220.shtml
http://newsbusters.org/node/5879

There's more than just a few, maybe you don't know that things that are put on wikipedia are checked for 1) sources and 2) neutrality.

Anyway, you're obviously confused, so I'll just let you be.

realistic · 09-07-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amandacurls

Quote:

Originally Posted by realistic

Aren't you the poster who said over on the politics board that we should return to the days when only rich educated men were allowed to vote?

I think it'd be a really good idea that if a poster says something offensive you quote it instead of throwing accusations around.

LOL. Yes ma'am.