Bloodless Coup

I don't get it either, and I DO watch this stuff and am supposed to be able to explain it. My first rough guess is that the Feds have discovered that there's some Really Scary Shit on AIG's books -- even more scary than originally thought -- and Paulson et al think that even talking about it would cause panic levels to rise unacceptable, so they've decided to rethink and rework the deal to maybe manage it more effectively?

But to the extent that even makes sense as an explanation, it falls under blindly trusting Paulson, and like almost everyone else I'm less inclined to do that with every passing day.

But it's not like this is a new thing, except as a matter of scale, and it's the scale of this that requires such things - right? I mean there are a host of big firms that are protected from "losing" (I'm looking at you, military-industrial complex). If the government decides there's a social good to be had by benefiting a firm in a way that isn't merited by the market, well, they've long done that. And I assume the same argument is in place now - not bailing AIG out will cause more harm to society than the alternative. And of course if the government required it make changes in the way it's managed, well, then people start throwing around "socialism", right?

I mean maybe I'm missing the point in these discussions but it seems to me that government is already deeply embedded in the market, and has been picking winners and losers for years.

Armand: I see the point about "social good", but I think the argument that naked capitalism is making is that even given the social good of not letting AIG fail, the PROCESS they have chosen to save AIG isn't the most efficient, or the best for the taxpayers. In other words, if the government is going to pick winners and losers, they aren't telling us which are which.

The linked post argues that the Treasury is basically saving AIG for the sake of AIGs management and Board of Governors. The taxpayer gets screwed; the stockholders get screwed. Why save AIGs management and board? What's the point of that?

The gist is that they are reworking the original AIG deal -- in which the Treasury insisted on very tough terms -- in a way that seems less tough. There's clearly a hidden story here, and whether it's taking-care-of-cronies or best-solution-at-hand-to-ugly-surprise remains to be seen.

I'm having trouble with the "best-solution-ugly-problem" scenario. What could be so ugly that Treasury and/or the Fed need to hide it?

In addition, now the Fed is letting AMEX become a bank, and borrow directly from the Fed's lending window. Is AMEX to big to fail?

I no longer see a rhyme or reason to the financial actions of the Treasury or Fed.

OK, so who knows from tax policy? This strikes me as a way to - last minute - backdoor in some wishlist shit (emphasis mine):

The change to Section 382 of the tax code -- a provision that limited a kind of tax shelter arising in corporate mergers -- came after a two-decade effort by conservative economists and Republican administration officials to eliminate or overhaul the law, which is so little-known that even influential tax experts sometimes draw a blank at its mention. Until the financial meltdown, its opponents thought it would be nearly impossible to revamp the section because this would look like a corporate giveaway, according to lobbyists.

Andrew C. DeSouza, a Treasury spokesman, said the administration had the legal authority to issue the notice as part of its power to interpret the tax code and provide legal guidance to companies. He described the Sept. 30 notice, which allows some banks to keep more money by lowering their taxes, as a way to help financial institutions during a time of economic crisis. "This is part of our overall effort to provide relief," he said.

Gonna be a lot of wishlist shit in the next few weeks... and to be fair, probably a lot more in the weeks and months after that. Nasty little people with wishlists love crises -- that's how we ended up with the frigging Patriot Act, after all.

Oh, to substance... tax rules are definitely not my area. At work there are other folks who are good with that sort of thing, so I've had no need to get up to speed. Truth is, questions around self-sabotaging behaviors and motivation and choice-making are way more interesting to me than the financial stuff itself, so I'm happy to riff on themes from behavioral finance research and choice theory and leave actual green-eyeshade analysis to others.

(Yes, I probably will end up as one of those annoying people who writes self-help books and goes on Oprah and all that. I'll be a male Martha Beck, only without the residual Mormon perkiness. Life is strange.)

Binky,
So, if I'm understanding your link, they're letting banks that merge pay less in taxes. So, bank a merges with bank b, and their collective tax burden is less. This seems like a good idea in tough economic times, to prevent monopolization of the banks. That is, if banks a and b merge, then one of them was vulnerable, and the other takes on that vulnerability in the short term for a long term profit. But if the government rather than the bank makes a big tax profit out of this, both banks remain vulnerable to bank c coming in and buying them both out.

Jacflash,
I wonder what you think about recent research that suggests people aren't going out and spending as a result of financial fear, as was expected, they're actually hunkering down. It appears to fly in the face of broad expectations about self sabotaging financial behavior, and I can't help but wonder if some financial conspiracy to scare people into spending more hasn't run smack into a hardwired self protective sense.

Morris, I don't know anyone who 'expected' people to go out and spend more 'as a result of financial fear'. Please provide links to mainstream sources -- or hell, any sources. I also don't know what "financial conspiracy to scare people into spending more" you're talking about. The recession has been on the horizon for a while, and came in to sharp focus late in September. People hunker down during recessions, always have. Why do you think this is some sort of surprise?

"Expectations about self sabotaging financial behavior" are far more nuanced and subtle and counterintuitive than you seem to think. There's a great lay overview on the subject by Belsky & Gilovich ("Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes" or something like that), I suggest you check it out if you're actually interested in the topic and not just looking to construct bizarre straw men in a lame attempt to score political points.

"Morris, I don't know anyone who 'expected' people to go out and spend more 'as a result of financial fear'."

If people don't spend money out of the sheer reinforcement of risk, then explain Las Vegas, explain a hundred billion dollar a year gambling industry, explain why Skinner's variable reinforcement schedule is more reinforcing than his continuous reinforcement schedule. Risk is motivating. Check out Jerome Kagan's Surprise, Uncertainty, and Mental Structures; it makes quite a case for people preferring a risky state to a neutral state, even when there is no pleasured state to be won.

This of course would explain why people wouldn't need to take personal financial risks if they perceive the economy of which they are a part to be in a state of risk, assuming we have gone beyond a tipping point at which they feel less need for risk (if risk is not in itself a zero sum game), and why people got us into this mess to start with as a way of seeking risk.

Gambling: risking some capital in hopes of an outsized, but unlikely, return.

Buying a big-screen TV during a global financial panic when one's job is at risk: not gambling.

Gambling and irresponsibility are different things.

Does that help?

Jacflash,
I know you want to make my sincere question into an argument and figure out how to win, I get that. But the truth is not so rational and certain as you make it out to be. How do most people know we're in a recession or depression? The media and their political leaders told them so. But this same media and many of the same political leaders have been telling us the same thing since 2003. If the truth of recession/depression were certain, your rational argument would fit.

Think of it this way. When gas prices and the minimum wage were increased and food inflated in cost by two times within a couple years, that effected many people's budgets. Some were helped because of the minimum wage, many were hurt because their costs increased. Yes, the media was crying about the economy, but no more than they had been before.

It is arguable that given the current rate of inflation has increased no more than a couple percent in the current crisis, that means about 2 percent of people's earnings have been lost, something that pales in comparison to the earnings lost as the price of gas and groceries for all people doubled. So there was really more reason to believe we were in a recession/depression when gas cost twice what it did, people were hit harder in their pocketbooks.

Now gas is back to what it was a couple years ago which in and of itself puts as much money back in the American worker's pocketbook as they've lost in losing two percent of jobs. And groceries haven't been swift to follow suit, but don't expect them to call Iowans in front of Congress about prices gouging, because they'd have to explain that their wages have skyrocketed as a result of the one third higher minimum wage and pressure on foreign workers.

The real difference to Americans has come in the stock market which is perceived as a measure of the American economy. Only after it tumbled were Americans convinced the economy was hurting. But for many people, the world markets are not a significant measure of their personal economic worth, just look at the Democrats who blamed oil futures investors for the rising price of oil.

There was no assumption that oil supplies had suddenly dropped or demand had suddenly skyrocketed, only that the world market price had changed without the sense that it represented something real beyond the simple perception of future supply and demand, and even with that the democrats disagreed. The only real thing besides a loss of portfolio that the stock market tumble represents is a loss of capital, but somehow I doubt if you asked people on Main Street why the stock market matters, you'd hear capital for greedy capitalist American corporations as one of their answers.

So all risk is essentially betting that one piece of the picture is going to end up being more important that another piece, the more risky winning piece more than the more stable lower risk piece, or the losing less risky piece more that the losing more risky piece. According to Sciencedaily in 2008:
"Research by a Kansas State University professor shows that household surveys predict the inflation rate fairly accurately and as well as professional economists."

There is no expert judgment that can say whether we are in a global financial panic based on reality or one created by the media that is becoming real as much as it is believed, one that could be merely a recession. And to accurately predict the difference between gambling and irresponsibility you would have to know not just what world banks and investors would do, but also what consumers would do, to know which pieces are going to be more important and be responsive to them. Even in economic downturns people make money, just look at Warren Buffett who made $8 billion in September. It is only history that determines the difference between the gambler and the irresponsible in world economies.

o. But this same media and many of the same political leaders have been telling us the same thing since 2003.

No they haven't. Prove it. Now. With links.

It's this sort of thing that makes you impossible to take seriously. You tell a lie -- a flagrant, stupid, made-up-out-of-pig-shit lie -- and expect us to debate you using that as a starting point.

I'm done. Somebody else deal with this loser.

Ruh roh, beginning of 3rd paragraph should read 2% unemployment where it says 2% inflation.

Ummm, no Morris, "gambling" and "irresponsibility" are indeed separate constructs with distinct definitions. Same thing with "recession".

And just b/c some people can make money during a downturn, that has absolutely no relevance to jacflash's example at 9:30.

As to your other non sequitirs - well, that's what they are.

This is exactly why no one can take you, Jac(fl)ass(h), seriously. You claim the media hasn't been predicting recession out of your ignorance and back it up with your arrogance, saying:

"It's this sort of thing that makes you impossible to take seriously. You tell a lie -- a flagrant, stupid, made-up-out-of-pig-shit lie -- and expect us to debate you using that as a starting point."

Here's the proof, but I know you won't swallow it because it doesn't taste like Obama-aide.

Boldfaced on the Democratic Fact Sheet from July 31, 2003:
"President Bush is on Track to Have the Worst Economic Record Since Herbert Hoover"

So, unless you want to make the claim that the Democrats had given up on their party taking back the Presidency in July 2003, that means they thought we were in as bad a mess five years ago (notice the rhetoric is exactly Obama's rhetoric) as we may or may not be in today.

As far back as April 2003, CNNMoney was talking about how the only way to make the recession pointed to by lower employment and industrial output a fleeting concern is if the war ended quickly. It's been five years, and most Democrats don't think that's quickly.

In May-June 2004 on CBS, economists were predicting a likely recession if oil prices were to go much above $40 a barrel, about $2 a gallon. As I recall, it skyrocketed up to about twice that starting about the time that Democrats took over the Congress, and that still wasn't enough to stop consumer confidence and spending.

In 2005, USA Today said that the aftermath of Katrina and Rita could push the economy into a recession.

In 2006, Bonnie Erbe of US News writes: "Is the Bush recession finally upon us? In all honesty, I've been anticipating it for years."

This is the problem, the ideology of the leftwing media drives the news because they focus on things that make conservatives look bad. And, as you are just another example, they ignore their own bias and the way their coverage creates news.

Armand,
Check out sciencedaily yesterday:
"Psychological and biomedical research has traditionally considered risk-taking as an abnormal expression of behaviour, as exemplified by its association with substance abuse and bipolar disorder. However, the Cambridge research, which was funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, found that entrepreneurs represent an example of highly adaptive risk-taking behaviour which can result in positive outcomes during stressful economic circumstances. This 'functional impulsivity', the ability to make quick decisions under stress, may have evolutionary value as a means of seizing opportunities in a rapidly-changing environment."

Eh, 1) that's not exactly surprising, and 2) what exactly is it supposed to be relevant to?

Morris, the reason no one can deal with your arguments is that they aren't logical. That is a pre-requisite for argumentation, and you don't have it.

See if you can follow me here:

You said:

How do most people know we're in a recession or depression? The media and their political leaders told them so. But this same media and many of the same political leaders have been telling us the same thing since 2003. If the truth of recession/depression were certain, your rational argument would fit. (First paragraph of this long comment.)

Your own words claim that the media has been telling us we've been in a recession/depression since 2003. Right? Those are your own words. Jacflash called you on that, and said that was so silly he wouldn't argue with you (which he is correct about, so I don't know why I'm doing this.)

You come back, claim Jacflash is wrong, and cite a bunch of stuff, NONE OF WHICH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MEDIA DECLARING A RECESSION IN 2003. Your sources, in order:

1. The Senate Budget Committee isn't "the media" to start with; secondly, the file argues about when the 2000/2001 recession started (NOT a 2003 recession, which doesn't exist); third, the document claims (accurately) that as of July 2003 the US economy still hadn't created enough new jobs to make up for all the ones lost during the 2000/2001 recession. Thus: no evidence here of a 2003 recession. This is your own source. It doesn't look like you read it. That tends to drive us nuts.

2. The CNN source isn't "the media" either, it's just some columnist working for CNN. Columnists get paid to write interesting things, not report news. Thus, this isn't an example of "the media" claiming there is a recession. In any event, the columnist in question does not say there is a recession, just that some indicators are showing that there might be. She turned out to be wrong. Bottom line: no claim here of an actual recession present in the American economy. Read your own sources, please.

3. Your third source is highly suspicious (they are an interest group, not a media source, and are clearly pro-business: their website claims they are "advancing the culture of free enterprise in America"). Even if we ignore that, the site claims that CBS ran two stories (two years apart) that talked about possible recessions. That isn't anything resembling "the media" (yes, it's CBS, but two stories out of the thousands they did does not meet any reasonable definition of a declaration of a recession, especially since neither story actually declared us to be in a recession). Moreover, CBS didn't declare anything in either story, they merely found economists who thought we were headed for a recession. So, this source does not show that "the media" have said we've been in a recession since 2003 (or in 2004, or in 2006 when these stories were supposedly run: the website doesn't link to them, so we have no idea if they really happened).

4. The USA Today source also doesn't claim what you say. The story notes that one of the consequences of Katrina COULD BE a recession. Not "IS", not "WILL BE", not "FOR SURE". They said it could happen (the story also notes that a terrorist attack, less consumer spending or a particularly cold winter could also, possibly, trigger a recession). Thus, that source also does not claim there is a recession.

5. The US News column. Once again, you've confused a columnist (opinion) with a news story (fact). This is, yet again, just a columnist. She's paid to have an opinion, not facts. Thus, this is (yet again) NOT an example of the media declaring a recession (and, note, this is from 2006; far later than your claim of 2003).

Thus, you offer five citations to prove that the media has been claiming recession since 2003 and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM DOESN'T CLAIM WHAT YOU SAY THEY CLAIM. Thus, you aren't arguing, you are just making shit up.

The reason you couldn't find any sources to claim what you want is because there aren't any. We know there was a recession around the time that Bush came to office (I suspect that non-partisan economists would put most of that blame on Clinton for the cause of that; I also suspect that most non-partisan economists would argue that Bush did little to get us out of it: tax cuts are not stimulus). There has not been a recession in this country since then, until now. Everybody knows this. Why you claim otherwise is beyond me. Have there been claims by some economists that we MIGHT get in a recession at times between 2001 and 2008? Sure. You can find an economist to claim whatever you want, and the fact of the matter is that we COULD have gotten into a recession at any time. So stories between 2001 and 2008 that say we MIGHT have a recession aren't evidence of anything. There have been stories every years since we invented the word "recession" that say we might have one. None of that is evidence that anyone claims we are in one. More specifically, none of this changes the fact that the media has NOT been claiming a recession since 2003. They just plainly haven't been doing this.

The centerpiece of the negative claims about Bush's economy (before the entire economy fell off a cliff a few months ago) was that the economy was exacerbating income distribution in America. In other words, wages for middle-income earners were not keeping up with inflation, but that the rich and very rich were getting the vast bulk of the wealth that the economy created between the end of the early recession (2002ish) and now (2008ish). No one, left or right, media or economist, however claimed that we were in a recession in that time frame.

In short, Morris, if you want to argue, please argue logically. I just wasted an hour arguing about something that we didn't need to argue about.

Oh, and back the original point of this whole post: I still don't have any idea what the Treasury is doing. Wednesday, Paulson decided that the TARP wasn't going to be about buying toxic real estate bonds, but was instead going to be about buying bonds that underlie consumer credit cars and auto loans. Why he did this, I have no idea (but I'm sure Jacflash can explain). More importantly, when did Paulson decide he could suspend the Constitution? The TARP may be bad law, but it is LAW, and Paulson shouldn't be able to just ignore the law. That makes me even more worried.

I'm leaving my Apocalypse Meter at around 2% (i.e. chance for the entire financial system collapsing is around 2%). Things looked better about a week or ten days ago, but now they look worse.

Baltar,
I don't know why I bother responding when you'll just respond like Jacflash with personal attacks. You actually have to read my posts to logically attack them, not just make use of the phrase "making sh** up" or illogical. If you actually read my posts, you would have seen my sentence:
"The media and their political leaders told them so. But this same media and many of the same political leaders have been telling us the same thing since 2003."

So your starting point is non-sequitor, because you say "The Senate Budget Committee isn't 'the media' to start with." Really? We must not have covered the difference between the senate and the media while I was getting a degree in Poli Sci, thanks for enlightening me with your (doctoral level, is it?) brilliance.

And the rest of your response is filled with other non-sequitors. Yes, it's talking about the state of the economy as it's progressed under Bush as of that point, but at that point it is 2003, and they're comparing it to Herbert Hoover's economy, also known as the Great Depression. So, you're right, they didn't claim we were heading into a recession five years ago, they claimed we were heading into a depression five years ago, and we haven't even been in a recession since then, so yes they use scare tactics without regard to the actual state of the economy as is the point.

Anybody can claim we're heading into a recession or depression, but when your whole party is five years off the mark, that says something about your motivation, eh?

And when did columnists become something different than the media? That is as obtuse as saying that the senate and the media are the same thing. Who do you think it is that pay the salaries of columnists if not the media? Where do you think CNN gets most of its stories if not from columnists? This is the point, liberals have this idea of the media as some pristine group of smartest people who figure things out when the truth is they're typically columnists without enough knowledge in any particular subject to get a degree in anything except journalism. And you trust these people as manufacturers of wisdom.

And what is the difference in your mind between the media saying we're heading into a recession and saying we're in an actual recession? In my mind, for one they're spreading fear and can be taken to court for outright lying, and for the other they can spread the same amount of fear by predicting recession/depression, but they can't be held responsible for the damage they create. It's just like Iraq, they predicted and defeat and emboldened AQ in Iraq for years with their predictions. They were wrong, but no one will hold the media accountable for the harm they cause when they're wrong.

"Moreover, CBS didn't declare anything in either story, they merely found economists who thought we were headed for a recession."

So here again you choose not to hold the media accountable when they CHOOSE TO run baseless stories about an economy headed toward recession. They CHOSE NOT TO run stories about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that had a base, coincidentally stories which would have damaged the Democratic Party. But where's the accountability? Where's the stories on Fannie and Freddie's management to rival all the stories on Enron or Big Oil and windfall profits? Where's the fairness and accountability from your print and televised media?

When groups supporting McCain ran ads about Obama's votes on gun control issues, predicting based on those votes his future votes, Obama supporters in law enforcement said they would sue any media running those ads for slander. But you're saying that it doesn't work the other way around, that the media has all the right in the world air predictions disparaging to Republicans, disparaging to the whole economy. Where's the fairness?

"More importantly, when did Paulson decide he could suspend the Constitution?"

This is the saddest part of all. If you actually listened to Rush, he warned all of his listeners about what the actual bailout bill did, and how it gave Paulson the power to do what he's doing now. But because you all are so convinced he never opposes Republicans, because you trusted your "actual media," you missed are, sadly, uninformed.

But this same media and many of the same political leaders have been telling us the same thing since 2003."

And I challenged you to prove that statement, because I emphatically believe it to be wrong. That isn't a personal attack. When you failed to do so, I accused you of lying. Maybe that's a personal attack, maybe it's a more emphatic challenge. But you still haven't done it, and so I have now made a blanket assumption that all of your posts here are being made in bad faith.

And so I disengaged. I don't hold out any hope of changing your mind -- after all, who am I to compete with the mighty Rush Limbaugh? -- so why should I bother? Eventually, perhaps, you'll learn -- as some of your far-right fellow travelers are finally starting to learn -- that attempting to retroactively change reality by making baldly false assertions in a bullying tone sometimes wins arguments for a while, but makes you look pretty stupid over the longer haul.

Disclaimer - This comment has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.

But as long as we are commenting in the kind of arguments that we each tend to make I'd just throw into the mix that this notion that Morris has that the media only disparages Republicans is fall on the floor funny.

Ever looked at Media Matters?

Ever noticed that for the last 20+ years the media has repeatedly associated the Democratic Party with godless, dirty hippies, who want to steal your wallet and who can't be trusted on national security? The prevailing media narratives are at best equally negative toward both parties, probably more negative toward the Democrats, and in general they are more than happy to simply hand over their megaphone to Republican politicians. Doubt it? Count the number of Republican and Democratic politicians on the Sunday talk shows today, or the amount of coverage provided to people for and against the war in 2001-2003. Rush fans and Republicans are not the victims of a sinister cabal run by Disney, NewsCorp and Viacom.

Jacflash writes: "That isn't a personal attack."

Have you forgotten the way you phrased your challenge? "a flagrant, stupid, made-up-out-of-pig-shit lie" Now, where does a logical or reasoned debate make it necessary for you to say it your way instaed of simply saying you challenge me to find proof? How is calling me a "loser" not a personal attack?

The fact that you won't admit to the evidence in front of you doesn't make the evidence untrue, it simply makes you irresponsible to the truth when that truth competes with your identity. I gave you an example of Democrats five years ago saying we were in a depression like economy, and of the media saying that we were heading into a recession every year from 2003 to 2006, all capped by the US News columnist who knew, who just knew, that we must be (because Bush is an idiot and Cheney is evil so they will eventually destroy everything). This is what you challenged me to, to provide these examples of the great mistake involved in trusting the media as producers of knowledge, and this is what I delivered.

And Rush is the illustration here, because you guys hate him, but as early as October 1st, a month and a half ago, he was talking about how bad this bailout bill was because of the unconstitutional nature of any bill that authorizes an unelected official to "ensure" that we have a good economy:

"Here is section two of the Senate bill, Purposes. 'Purposes of this act are to immediately provide authority and facilities that the secretary of the Treasury can use to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States.' Now, what exactly is the financial system of the United States, and why does one man get the job of restoring it? As if it needs to be restored. For example, does this mean that Secretary Paulson could impose tax cuts? Can he impose tax increases?

"But the fact that the bill says that he's got the authority to do it puts a lot of power, useless power, by the way, could do a lot of damage, but nobody can guarantee the value of everybody's home, investment, or what have you."

Armand,
Check the bias of media matters before you use it as a source. According to the Pew Research Center via the LA Times as of October 23rd:
"Media coverage of the presidential race has not always been glowing for Barack Obama, but it has clearly been negative for John McCain, according to a survey of newspaper, Internet and television news since the political conventions.

"Slightly fewer than a third of the stories about Obama were negative, whereas more than a third were positive and about the same number were neutral or mixed. More than half of the stories about McCain cast him in a negative light, whereas fewer than 2 in 10 were positive, according to Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism."

Ergo, it's not the dirty, godless, hippies. It's the naive, pentacostal militants, or at least it was with Sarah Palin.

Morris that is an N of 1 when it comes to a media bias - hardly an Earth-shattering data point to throw into the mix.

And it's all the more a "duh" and unrepresentative data point when you consider that most campaign coverage is "horse race" coverage which is focused on either 1) the polls or 2) the ads - and it's hardly the media's fault, or evidence of bias, if they reported that McCain's campaign was unappealing (he was usually behind in the polls - hence negative stories), divisive and centered on negative ads. They were reporting facts.

Not to mention that, to challenge the tenor of stories as ipso facto biased if it's positive/negative ratio per candidate, is in effect to say that an outlet is biased if it does not achieve equality in that regard without consideration of the respective campaigns run by the candidates and how they are structured, sold, and perceived. While McCain loved to tout the unprecedented money spent on attack ads, he never bothered to mention that the ratio of attack ads issued by each campaign was not the same: in the last couple of months of the campaign, McCain ran very few ads about how good he was; he relied almost exclusively on how bad / scary / black-different-other Obama was. That the populace perceived this distinction is well-documented; that the media picked up on this and didn't pretend each campaign was equally respectable, honest, etc., is one of the few positive notes one can find in political coverage during this cycle.

The GOP isn't entitled to equally favorable treatment if it doesn't run equally honest and positive campaigns, nor if it is perceived as petty and nasty by the media's constituency.

McCain ran a dirty campaign when he realized he couldn't win on his ideas, such as they were, and the media occasionally acknowledged the distinction.

"Morris that is an N of 1 when it comes to a media bias - hardly an Earth-shattering data point to throw into the mix."

Actually Armand, it's an N of 2,412 from 48 news outlets. Yes, so called "horse race reporting" which focuses on campaign tactics accounts for just over 50% of the coverage, but that leaves me as confused as ageist Obama attack ads portrayed McCain to be, in figuring out how that excuses the horsewhipping Obama and his media friends gave Governor Palin who was the reason that media coverage for McCain's campaign caught up with Obama's coverage in the last months. I love how you segue from your deflection to "They were reporting the facts." Hmmm. Like Palin's daughter's love child? Like when they went on the Joe the Plumber witch hunt?

Moon writes:
"Not to mention that, to challenge the tenor of stories as ipso facto biased if it's positive/negative ratio per candidate, is in effect to say that an outlet is biased if it does not achieve equality in that regard without consideration of the respective campaigns run by the candidates and how they are structured, sold, and perceived."

And by that standard alone we should admit the fairness doctrine is a fool's errand. However, it is exactly how the campaigns are perceived that is at question. Were many questions asked about negative Obama campaign related news like his staff choices of Jim Johnson and other Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac celebrities? These would have fit into the horse race mold, but who asked them? Did we get an honest question and answer from Obama about why he chose to dismiss public financing when it no longer would benefit him? Did we get an honest question and answer about why he would play the race card against both Clinton and McCain? These are news stories, but how many times did we hear them?

Even now, who is asking Obama why suddenly he thinks we're not in the Great Depression, just a recession? What's changed, besides him being elected? Does this mean he gives Bush credit for averting the worse financial crisis he talked about, which is what he must do if he honestly has changed his opinion on the state of the economy? Does this mean he thinks we're in the worst economic crisis since the Carter administration and not since Herbert Hoover?

This guy is the cult of personality. Or maybe he's just a glamour boy. We don't know because no one will ask the question. If it's not the media's job to ask these questions, what would you say they do here?

Morris it's not that complicated. The campaigns cover the ads - Negative ads were a higher percentage of which campaign's ads? Hmmm, I wonder? [And how in the hell is coverage of Bristol Palin (which was largely very positive) related to McCain's negatives?]

And of course you are leaving out the other side of horserace coverage. It's harder on the person who is losing - and for most of the campaign McCain was losing. When he wasn't losing the media delighted in covering it (after he won the primaries, around the convention), but if he dropped like a stone in the polls, what, you expect them to prop him up or ignore it?

"And of course you are leaving out the other side of horserace coverage. It's harder on the person who is losing - and for most of the campaign McCain was losing."

If it's harder on the person losing, explain why the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that there were twice as many negative stories on Bush as there were on Kerry in the closing weeks of 2004 election, despite Kerry losing throughout September and October. The media actually did prop up Kerry and bring down Bush, and they did bring down McCain. It's almost as though they were playing favorites.

Bristol Palin is the worst example of disreputable negative personal attacks on Governor Palin. She is not even a legal adult, but they tried to destroy her mother by attacking her personal life. Nice.

Were the stories on the campaign, or on the Bush presidency (the dynamics of a race involving an incumbent will be different)? And were they on the anti-Kerry attack ads (something we've already mentioned as a cause for negative media coverage)?

And I've got to say I find this whole diversion fall-on-the-floor hilarious. If there's a politician during my lifetime who's benefited most from practically hagiographic press coverage it's John McCain. The idea that the press was out to get him boggles the mind.

And I still don't know what the hell you are talking about with Bristol. How noting the knocked-up teen (how in the hell would that not be a news story, given that Republicans have been railing against them for years?) is somehow destroying Palin ... I don't see it. Who exactly was arguing Palin was unfit for the vice presidency b/c her daughter was preggers? No one that I know of.

"If there's a politician during my lifetime who's benefited most from practically hagiographic press coverage it's John McCain. The idea that the press was out to get him boggles the mind."

In almost every case, because McCain is to liberals what Lieberman is to conservatives, someone who takes on his own party on principle, and if you're a liberal in the media who wants to appear broadminded, you go for McCain more than almost any other Republican. But Obama is a liberal's liberal, and it boggles your mind this is unfair only because that's the team you cheer for, with which you identify, which is not a logical type of thought. The research I have provided, so you can see the instant replay, but you're not arguing with the result.

And why would I think people are calling Sarah Palin an unfit mother. It's because they are.

As to your first paragraph, let's recap. I said the media was biased against McCain and provided research. You attempted to dismiss that research by asserting that there is no bias. I refuted this by bringing up 2004 in which there was a bias. You are attempting to refute (saying anti-incumbent) my refutation (bias in 2004) of your refutation (no bias) of my original point (bias).

The Project for Excellence in Journalism addressed this in 2004 by comparing that race in which incumbent President Bush ran against challenger Kerry to 2000 in which incumbent VP Gore ran against challenger Bush:

"Overall, 59% of Bush dominated stories were clearly negative in nature--meaning they contained statements that were at least two-to-one critical of the President. That is a nearly exact mirror image of the 56% of decidedly negative Gore stories four years ago.

"The only difference is that just 25% of Kerry stories were decidedly negative. In 2000, when Bush received more favorable coverage, nearly half of Bush stories during the debate phase still carried a decidedly negative cast.

"When it came to positive coverage, just over a third (34%) of Kerry-dominated stories was clearly favorable, while only 14% of stories about the President were. Bush’s numbers here are again almost identical to Gore’s in 2000.

"As for Kerry, once again his positive numbers are higher than how Bush fared four years ago, when the then-Texas governor enjoyed 24% percent positive stories."

So there is an incumbent effect, but that effect intermingles with an effect favoring the more liberal candidate and punishing the more conservative. In the recent election, there was no incumbent, so favoring of the liberal candidate was more evident.

Well that's fine and dandy Mo, but you still aren't addressing the specific content of these "negative" stories. Is it perhaps the case that in all 3 cycles the right-wing candidate (I'd take exception to saying they were the more "conservative" candidates, necessarily) were more mendacious than their opponents, and/or ran more negative campaigns that stirred up more criticism? If so, it's not really accurate to say that the media is being biased in their coverage. The coverage of the more egregious and unfair liars may indeed be more negative - but if they weren't running those kinds of campaigns, they wouldn't necessarily be ginning up these stories.

So, no amount of measurement and research can convince you. You'll find a way to explain why it must be wrong, there can be no bias against your candidates. Basically, you've forgotten about Dan Rather.

The most telling thing about the Dan Rather story is CBS's covert effort to enable a conservative witch hunt. The funny thing is, even if he botched the investigative side, there's still little reason to believe the core story wasn't more or less true.

Indeed Moon - I've always found that more than a little interesting - the brouhaha was over CBS's reporting of the story more than the true facts of the matter.

And no Mo, research might well convince me - but the research should control for the dynamics at play. There are a wide variety of negative stories, and they surely don't all amount to "bias".

Moon,
Right, just because a particular document was created in a way that didn't exist at the time that document was purported to have been created is actually more proof that such a document did exist because who would go to the trouble of creating such a document unless they had seen one like it? Is that about it?

Armand,
The standard you're using would not admit to the connection between heart disease and cholesterol. You're saying that the difference in measurement might be attributable to the quality rather than the characteristics of the candidates. But how can we ever measure something as indeterminite as quality without measuring its characteristics? In political judgment, research shows it is the identification that drives what is focused on, like the recent Zogby research where 95% of Obama voters knew Governor Palin had a teenage daughter but only one in six knew Obama got elected by kicking his opponents off the ballot and only one in 7 knew what Obama had said about the coal industry.

Either the media had reported this and it failed to stick because these are die hard democrats (which the numbers of independents and Republicans sampled do not support), or the media is a bunch of die hard democrats who never reported these things because they identified with the chosen one and didn't want to bring him down. The idea that quality figured into this coverage is doubtful considering that over half of Obama voters didn't even know that Democrats had run both houses of Congress for the past two years.

That document wasn't the only basis upon which National Guard-related allegations had been made, and indeed there had been far more substance to them than there is to 90% of the fabricated bile you've spewed here about whatever Dem you can't simply disagree with on principle, but have to despise like your mortal enemy, on any given day. The fact remains, rich connected man's son hid out in the National Guard while the lest fortunate fought and died in a grievous and pointless and tragic conflict. If you've got a good reason for that, other than lightly veiled variations on, His Dad had those connections because he was a better person than those who didn't, and therefore his son deserved to gain the thin veneer of service while being carted off to Canada for all intents and purposes relative to the war, feel free to let me know.

And hey, Bush's service amounted to more than many of those pounding the Republican drum to send our kids overseas to fight the people who didn't bomb us on 9-11, and posted no imminent threat to this country, so it's not like it's all bad.

I'm actually with Morris for once... that "letter" was such an obviously-fabricated piece of bullshit, and the non-denial denials in the wake of its exposure so non-denial denialish, that I have trouble taking any aspect of that story seriously. LGF won that round fair and square, IMO.

Morris I honestly don't know what you are talking about. My point was that by the nature of their campaigns the Republicans' actions might on their own drive more negative press reporting without press bias having anything to do with it. I don't follow this quality/characteristic distinction.

I'm also not clear on how surveys of what the public knows about X are supposed to say something precise about political reporting's bias. Those are 2 different things.

And I don't think the fact that a knocked-up teenage Republican celebrity got more news coverage than a matter of election law in a state Senate race in Illinois is an example of a pro-Democratic bias. The latter definitely got news coverage (which if such a bias existed you'd think it wouldn't have gotten) - but the latter is also remote from what normally gets put on tv. There imperiled girls, salacious discoveries and scandals rule the roost, regardless of party.

As to the Rather thing, to be clear, I think what CBS was basing their story on was weak - but I think there was a story there. Though if I remember Kevin Drum's exhaustive (and critical of CBS) coverage correctly the exact details would likely be impossible to prove given the destruction of relevant documents.

Nor, to be clear, am I defending the Rather coverage. I just think that was the meta-story, behind which the quite plausible story about Bush effectively disappeared.