Is Barack Obama vain?

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm curious how much TV time Obama has had compared to other (recent) Presidents. Seems to me he's always on. (I googled but found nothing relevent)

At some point I expect over exposure to set-in.

Fern

More coverage than Bush and Clinton combined

During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama?s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama?s.

The networks varied in their attention to the Obama administration. CBS led the coverage with 365 stories and 10 hours 46 minutes of airtime, followed by NBC with 327 stories and 9 hours 38 minutes, and ABC with 329 stories and 7 hours 20 minutes. Thus, CBS has given more coverage to the Obama administration than all three networks combined gave to the first 50 days of George W. Bush?s presidency.

Wow! I knew it was really bad, but didn't realize is could possibly be that bad. Then again he did tell Harry Reid "I have a gift!".

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm curious how much TV time Obama has had compared to other (recent) Presidents. Seems to me he's always on. (I googled but found nothing relevent)

At some point I expect over exposure to set-in.

Fern

More coverage than Bush and Clinton combined

During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama?s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama?s.

The networks varied in their attention to the Obama administration. CBS led the coverage with 365 stories and 10 hours 46 minutes of airtime, followed by NBC with 327 stories and 9 hours 38 minutes, and ABC with 329 stories and 7 hours 20 minutes. Thus, CBS has given more coverage to the Obama administration than all three networks combined gave to the first 50 days of George W. Bush?s presidency.

Yowser. I knew it seemed like there was an inordinate amount of time set aside for adoration of the dear leader, I guess it's confirmed now.....

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm curious how much TV time Obama has had compared to other (recent) Presidents. Seems to me he's always on. (I googled but found nothing relevent)

At some point I expect over exposure to set-in.

Fern

You can't watch 60 minutes without an interview from him every single sunday. It's downright nauseating. Genx87 has already covered what he's going to ramble and stutter constantly about.

while i think he is on TV far to much one thing he does not do is stutter. long as the prompter is fine he is great.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: KK
Why can't the dumbass just talk during the day? Why's he gotta be an attention whore? And kudos to fox for putting the attention whore in his place.

afraif your going to miss an episode of Queer eye???

 

[Mxylplyx]

Many of you dumbasses are so used to getting in a tizzy over the word "fox" that you fail to realize that there is a big difference between the fox entertainment division and fox news. This decision has nothing to do with political leanings, it is simply about ratings and money. Also, for those of you who believe anything Murdoch touches has to have a conservative bias, explain the fundraising Murdoch did for Hillary Clinton? Murdoch saw a business opportunity in the left leaning traditional media sphere, and created a far right leaning network to pull disaffected conservative viewers, and it has made him buku's of money. Every celebrity or liberal blogger that rails on fox news is helping make Fox News even more successful.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm curious how much TV time Obama has had compared to other (recent) Presidents. Seems to me he's always on. (I googled but found nothing relevent)

At some point I expect over exposure to set-in.

Fern

More coverage than Bush and Clinton combined

During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama?s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama?s.

The networks varied in their attention to the Obama administration. CBS led the coverage with 365 stories and 10 hours 46 minutes of airtime, followed by NBC with 327 stories and 9 hours 38 minutes, and ABC with 329 stories and 7 hours 20 minutes. Thus, CBS has given more coverage to the Obama administration than all three networks combined gave to the first 50 days of George W. Bush?s presidency.

Thanks (your google-foo is superior!)

Dayum, can't wait to see the 1st 100 days record amount of exposure/coverage.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm curious how much TV time Obama has had compared to other (recent) Presidents. Seems to me he's always on. (I googled but found nothing relevent)

At some point I expect over exposure to set-in.

Fern

More coverage than Bush and Clinton combined

During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama?s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama?s.

The networks varied in their attention to the Obama administration. CBS led the coverage with 365 stories and 10 hours 46 minutes of airtime, followed by NBC with 327 stories and 9 hours 38 minutes, and ABC with 329 stories and 7 hours 20 minutes. Thus, CBS has given more coverage to the Obama administration than all three networks combined gave to the first 50 days of George W. Bush?s presidency.

Thanks (your google-foo is superior!)

Dayum, can't wait to see the 1st 100 days record amount of exposure/coverage.

Fern

Bush avoiding the press/doesn't give a crap about the public becomes 'media bias' that the president who ran on more communication and transparency talks to the public more.

Just one more example of the right attacking Obama whatever he does. With more communication, we get this. If the numbers were reversed, we'd get how he's hiding from the public. And if his numbers were exactly the same, we'd get "Obama is the same as Bush LOLCHANGE". Blind idiotic bias.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Many of you dumbasses are so used to getting in a tizzy over the word "fox" that you fail to realize that there is a big difference between the fox entertainment division and fox news. This decision has nothing to do with political leanings, it is simply about ratings and money. Also, for those of you who believe anything Murdoch touches has to have a conservative bias, explain the fundraising Murdoch did for Hillary Clinton? Murdoch saw a business opportunity in the left leaning traditional media sphere, and created a far right leaning network to pull disaffected conservative viewers, and it has made him buku's of money. Every celebrity or liberal blogger that rails on fox news is helping make Fox News even more successful.

There is a big difference, but not an infinite one, and it all goes into Murdoch's pocket.

You're right that Murdoch is more about money than ideology, but he's like an arms merchant who leaves many bodies behind to get his money, amoral, evil.

I don't know why he funded Hillary, but one possibility is that he thought she would be easier to defeat than Obama.

But Hilllary isn't all that liberal - she's a former Wal-Mart board member, for an idea.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm curious how much TV time Obama has had compared to other (recent) Presidents. Seems to me he's always on. (I googled but found nothing relevent)

At some point I expect over exposure to set-in.

Fern

More coverage than Bush and Clinton combined

During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama?s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama?s.

The networks varied in their attention to the Obama administration. CBS led the coverage with 365 stories and 10 hours 46 minutes of airtime, followed by NBC with 327 stories and 9 hours 38 minutes, and ABC with 329 stories and 7 hours 20 minutes. Thus, CBS has given more coverage to the Obama administration than all three networks combined gave to the first 50 days of George W. Bush?s presidency.

Thanks (your google-foo is superior!)

Dayum, can't wait to see the 1st 100 days record amount of exposure/coverage.

I think everyone recognized that Obama winning would be a historic moment in US history. Tends to follow that his presidency will be historically monitored by the press, bloggers, citizenry, etc.

And, uh, as Farang implied above, there is a fair bit going on these days for him to talk about you know.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm curious how much TV time Obama has had compared to other (recent) Presidents. Seems to me he's always on. (I googled but found nothing relevent)

At some point I expect over exposure to set-in.

Fern

More coverage than Bush and Clinton combined

During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama?s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama?s.

The networks varied in their attention to the Obama administration. CBS led the coverage with 365 stories and 10 hours 46 minutes of airtime, followed by NBC with 327 stories and 9 hours 38 minutes, and ABC with 329 stories and 7 hours 20 minutes. Thus, CBS has given more coverage to the Obama administration than all three networks combined gave to the first 50 days of George W. Bush?s presidency.

In other news, President Bush was so vain in September 2001 that he received more air time during that month than the past three Presidents combined.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Bush avoiding the press/doesn't give a crap about the public becomes 'media bias' that the president who ran on more communication and transparency talks to the public more.

Just one more example of the right attacking Obama whatever he does. With more communication, we get this. If the numbers were reversed, we'd get how he's hiding from the public. And if his numbers were exactly the same, we'd get "Obama is the same as Bush LOLCHANGE". Blind idiotic bias.

Did you even bother to read the link or are you set on auto-stupid?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: KK
Why can't the dumbass just talk during the day? Why's he gotta be an attention whore? And kudos to fox for putting the attention whore in his place.

afraif your going to miss an episode of Queer eye???

omg, you implied that he's gay. you're incredibly clever.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: KK
Why can't the dumbass just talk during the day? Why's he gotta be an attention whore? And kudos to fox for putting the attention whore in his place.

[/quote]

by only airing the speech on 2 of their 3 networks? yeah, what a smackdown. And if you IM the mods you can have them add on that K you're missing.

 

[mugs]

The first 100 days have long been considered an important period in a president's term, and it warrants a press conference to discuss what he has accomplished and what he intends to accomplish. I don't think it warrants a prime-time news conference though, and I won't waste my time watching it. I think Fox is smart to opt out, they'll probably get a ratings boost.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Craig234
Bush avoiding the press/doesn't give a crap about the public becomes 'media bias' that the president who ran on more communication and transparency talks to the public more.

Just one more example of the right attacking Obama whatever he does. With more communication, we get this. If the numbers were reversed, we'd get how he's hiding from the public. And if his numbers were exactly the same, we'd get "Obama is the same as Bush LOLCHANGE". Blind idiotic bias.

Did you even bother to read the link or are you set on auto-stupid?

What an idiot. My comments are regarding *the post I quoted*. Crawl back under a rock.

 

[theeedude]

Barack Obama is building support for his policies. That scares some on the right, GOOD!.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Barack Obama is building support for his policies. That scares some on the right, GOOD!.

I wouldn't call it building support as the more he goes on about it the less support he's getting from all. spend, spend, spend. takeover private industry, learn from Venezuela and do what they did!

Yeah, support for his policies is waning as peoples eyes are opened to his crap.

 

[moparacer]

The important question is did he fire the idiot he has running the teleprompter after the last episode?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
Barack Obama is building support for his policies. That scares some on the right, GOOD!.

I wouldn't call it building support as the more he goes on about it the less support he's getting from all. spend, spend, spend. takeover private industry, learn from Venezuela and do what they did!

Yeah, support for his policies is waning as peoples eyes are opened to his crap.

If you want to believe this, I can't stop you.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Craig234
Bush avoiding the press/doesn't give a crap about the public becomes 'media bias' that the president who ran on more communication and transparency talks to the public more.

Just one more example of the right attacking Obama whatever he does. With more communication, we get this. If the numbers were reversed, we'd get how he's hiding from the public. And if his numbers were exactly the same, we'd get "Obama is the same as Bush LOLCHANGE". Blind idiotic bias.

Did you even bother to read the link or are you set on auto-stupid?

What an idiot. My comments are regarding *the post I quoted*. Crawl back under a rock.

Yeah, I was also talking about the link. It looks like you haven't bothered to read the link and replied with your default "right wing attacking Obama" reply.

The link was regarding the hrs of coverage Obama got, how is that a "Just one more example of the right attacking Obama whatever he does."? Are you saying they came up with that number out of thin air? Or is just stating facts now looked upon as attacking?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
Barack Obama is building support for his policies. That scares some on the right, GOOD!.

I wouldn't call it building support as the more he goes on about it the less support he's getting from all. spend, spend, spend. takeover private industry, learn from Venezuela and do what they did!

Yeah, support for his policies is waning as peoples eyes are opened to his crap.

You really have no fucking clue do you???
All you care about and dream about is the good ole days when the Bushes were in control....sad that you cannot face reality.
Maybe in 2016 if lucky the Republicans might stand a snowballs chance in hell...hahahaaa

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda


You really have no fucking clue do you???
All you care about and dream about is the good ole days when the Bushes were in control....sad that you cannot face reality.
Maybe in 2016 if lucky the Republicans might stand a snowballs chance in hell...hahahaaa

I don't care to much about parties. I care about what this fucking fucker is doing to destroy my country so quickly. I care even more that people actually want what he's selling, that's the real shame.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Honestly, as annoying as it gets at times....I'll take it over the alternative (the previous administration popping up each Jan for the SOTU to tell us everything was hunky dorey while they were trying to hit the self destruct button at every corner).

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda


You really have no fucking clue do you???
All you care about and dream about is the good ole days when the Bushes were in control....sad that you cannot face reality.
Maybe in 2016 if lucky the Republicans might stand a snowballs chance in hell...hahahaaa

I don't care to much about parties. I care about what this fucking fucker is doing to destroy my country so quickly. I care even more that people actually want what he's selling, that's the real shame.

Just like you cared about what Bush actually did to destroy your country??

What is pathetic is that it has not been proven at all if what Obama has done so far is going to be good or bad....unlike Bush!!

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda


You really have no fucking clue do you???
All you care about and dream about is the good ole days when the Bushes were in control....sad that you cannot face reality.
Maybe in 2016 if lucky the Republicans might stand a snowballs chance in hell...hahahaaa

I don't care to much about parties. I care about what this fucking fucker is doing to destroy my country so quickly. I care even more that people actually want what he's selling, that's the real shame.

Just like you cared about what Bush actually did to destroy your country??

What is pathetic is that it has not been proven at all if what Obama has done so far is going to be good or bad....unlike Bush!!

I don't have faith in any politicians, but so far within these first 100 days we have seen his work of "change" in:

-Guantanamo Bay being dismantled.
-No more drug raids on medical marijuana dispensaries.
-Release of torture memos.
-Repealed the global gag order.
-Lifted restrictions on Cuban Americans' visits to relatives and the amount of money they can send to them.


I honestly can't even think of anything great that criminal in chief Bush did. Although I don't agree with some of Obama's policies, at least he is getting shit done. He has accomplished more within a 100 days than Bush did in 8 years.

The right wackos just need to calm the fuck down. I swear if they found out that Obama was taking 5 minutes too long on the shitter they would complain about that.