NY Post falsely claimed that ad analysis findings "clashed with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads"
SUMMARY: The New York Post falsely claimed that the results of a Wisconsin Advertising Project analysis stating that in a recent week Sen. Barack Obama ran more negative ads than Sen. John McCain "clash with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads." In fact, the analysis reportedly "do[es]n't measure the veracity of the ads"; rather, in the words of the San Francisco Chronicle's Joe Garofoli, it "define[s] 'negative' as any time you mention the opponent's name." Thus, the analysis did not "clash" with recent media reports noting that McCain's ads distorted Obama's record because it reportedly did not analyze whether the ads contained distortions.
In a September 18 article, the New York Post falsely claimed that the results of a September 17 Wisconsin Advertising Project analysis -- which stated that in "the first week of advertising after the conventions ... 56 percent of the [Sen. John] McCain campaign ads were negative, while 77 percent of [Sen Barack] Obama's ads were negative" -- "clash with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads." In fact, the analysis reportedly "do[es]n't measure the veracity of the ads," in the words of San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Joe Garofoli. Rather it "define[s] 'negative' as any time you mention the opponent's name." In other words, the analysis did not "clash" with recent media reports noting that McCain's ads have contained falsehoods and distorted Obama's record, because it reportedly did not analyze whether the ads contained falsehoods or distortions.
In a September 17 post on his San Francisco Chronicle blog, Garofoli wrote of the analysis:
The WAP says "56 percent of the McCain campaign ads were negative, while 77 percent of Obama's ads were negative" between Sept. 6-13.
Here's the fine print: The WAPpers define "negative" as any time you mention the opponent's name. So if Team O ran an ad that said "My economic plan is better than John McCain's" -- ding! ding! ding! -- that rings negative bells in the WAP's ears. And they don't measure the veracity of the ads or whether something was a personal attack or a policy attack.
WAP deputy director Sarah Niebler told us why: "It's more objective than having our coders determine what is a personal negative attack and what is a policy negative attack."
Indeed, the Wisconsin Advertising Project, in a September 17 press release about the study, gave no indication that it attempted to assess the accuracy of the ads. Of its negative ad count, the Project wrote:
In line with the expectations of most observers, the campaign has turned more negative since the conclusion of the Republican Convention. In the first week of advertising after the conventions, Obama aired a higher percentage of negative ads than did McCain. 56 percent of the McCain campaign ads were negative, while 77 percent of Obama's ads were negative.
The September 18 New York Post article by Carl Campanile in its entirety:
Barack Obama has aired substantially more negative TV ads than John McCain following the political conventions, a study released yesterday found.
The University of Wisconsin analysis showed that 77 percent of Obama's ads that ran from Sept. 6-13 were negative -- nearly all of the critical spots portraying McCain as a clone of President Bush.
By comparison, 56 percent of McCain's ads were considered negative for attacking Obama.
The most frequently aired Obama ad is called "Same" -- a 30-second spot that shows five different shots of McCain with Bush. McCain's most frequently shown ad is "Original Mavericks," portraying the GOP candidate and running mate Sarah Palin as the real reformers. It does not attack Obama.
The results clash with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads.
Both candidates spent a combined $15 million in ads last week.
Just a friendly rejoinder, snoopy...
Very few recent topics have been about racism...but you regularly manage to inject a racism angle. What gives?
I understand what you're saying. With a black candidate running...racism is certainly a part of the landscape. And I'm not trying to tell you what to post...or what is on/off topic.
But...what does this thread have to do with racism...other than you brought it up?
Just a question, did you watch the ad Limbaugh is referring to? Maybe the link is not as strong as you would like, but this post is about negative ads and who has more. If Obama made a racist ad as Limbaugh suggests, would that not fall under a discussion about negative ads?
Sure I followed your link...and it's appropriate for a discussion on negative ads.
Negative ads can be about character, policy, shifting positions and many other issues...but you have lately and regularly managed to go find some issue relating to racism and inject it into the thread.
I'm not finding fault in your postings about racism...everyone has issues that are most important to themselves. I was just curious about what is driving your pretty constant postings about racism...regardless of the subject at hand.
Wes, perhaps its because I see a pattern of not just racism, but sexism, some homophobism, and efforts to instill fear in the form of calling Obama a muslim come out in articles posted here every day. Contrary to your earlier point, we've been seeing a lot of examples lately of prejudice. Racism happens to be one of the more pronounced one this cycle.
Am I offending your senses or something? I'm not really sure why you are concerned...
Of course you're not offending me, snoop.
And I'm not concerned...just was curious about your motivation to push the race issue lately...nothing more, nothing less...I get your drift, amigo.
Homeboy can't seem to make the distinction between positive attacks, negative attacks, ethical attacks and unethical attacks.
Obama rightly points out McCain's negatives; the ads are necessarily then, by nature negative ads, but they are nonetheless, true.
For example in the, 'Same,' ad, McCain's 90% with Bush voting record and kissy face images with Bush are indeed negatives for McCain. But that's because embracing conservatism, like McCain does, is a really dumb and negative thing to do in the face of all the con failures that afflict our country from the economy to healthcare to foreign policy.
Contrast that with McCain's utterly unethical distortion of Obama'a sex education position. McCain wants us to believe that Obama wants to teach our children how to fornicate. That's sleazy. In truth the the kind of education Obama favors for kindergardeners is the recognition of and alerting to, inappropriate touching. It's a common sense approach to teaching kids how to protect themselves from predators.
Yet Obama proves himself to be no better.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html
Exactly! Republicans lied about Obama's work to protect kids from sexual predators and the Democrats quoted Rush Limbaugh out of context! Not since the network premiere of 'Twins' have we seen such doppelgangery on the TV!
Anyone who spends so much time out there crosses the line pretty often.
If jerkwad Republicans want to reap the electoral rewards of Limbaugh's anti-liberal, anti-intellectual, anti-feminist, anti-labor and anti-immigrant propaganda, they sure as shit better be ready suffer the consequences of his stupidity.
If cons like John McCain, don't agree with the extremist right-wing hate speech of Rush, then he can come out and condemn him. But he won't because Rush is too valuable an ally in capturing the hard right base.