Comments on: Meanwhile back in the department of double standards

By: melaleuca

melaleuca — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:08 +0000

I didn’t get it either.

Anyway, let’s move on :)

By: NPOV

NPOV — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:57:43 +0000

Ok, now I’m just baffled: am I really the only person who interpreted your post as

“Tabloids have been giving McCain an easy time because of his political party, after all they didn’t do the same to Clinton, and wouldn’t do the same to Obama”?

No, you didn’t say anything about tabloids, but it IS the first word in the title of the article you linked to.

I will say the possibility that the non-tabloid newspaper readership is less likely to want to read dirt on McCain than dirt on Obama is pretty remote.

And why is this the only Troppo topic undergoing any discussion, when it’s about the least interesting?

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:39:02 +0000

NPOV,

You’re importing all sorts of things into my post that are not there. A double standard applied by a newspaper (I said nothing about tabloids btw) might well be a profit maximising move – in which case it’s (presumably) appealing to double standards in its readership.

It’s a double standard.

I will now repeat myself for emphasis.

It is a double standard.

By: NPOV

NPOV — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:19:04 +0000

Hmm, I think you made it pretty clear you thought Obama was being treated differently to McCain simply because of the political party he belonged to (given you mentioned Clinton also). But, as I said, perhaps it’s simply because the stories about McCain aren’t as interesting to tabloid readers? There’s no double standard there: tabloid editors simple assess each story and determine whether it will make copy. If the same stories happened about Obama, they may have become interesting to tabloid readers by virtue of his age, looks, skin-colour or political inclination of the readership, though as I said, we really have no way of telling. At most you could say that the tabloid editors think their *readers* tend to apply double standards.

And FWIW, some of McCain’s behaviour alluded to by that article is surely worthy of more than just tabloid “investigation”.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:58:56 +0000

“Deliberately”? Who said anything about ‘deliberately’. Who said anything about the political inclinations of the editors. I said they were being treated differently and you seem to agree.

And yes, one of the main concerns of newspapers is to make money. If they need double standards to make money they have double standards.

If you don’t want to call it a double standard call it something else. But I call it a double standard.

By: NPOV

NPOV — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:16:01 +0000

The post title refers to “double standards”. That implies you belief the tabloid editors deliberately apply one standard to McCain and another to Obama. I’m suggesting there are other possible explanations as to why McCain gets one sort of treatment while, for example, Clinton got another. And further, we simply have no idea what sort of treatment Obama would get if there was some sort of evidence he was involved in anything remotely scandalous – indeed, a tabloid determined to smear Obama by implying anything scandalous would surely do so regardless of how much evidence existed.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:09:48 +0000

NPOV, I didn’t speculate as to the causation of the bias, I speculated that there was bias.

By: NPOV

NPOV — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:15:32 +0000

I have to say I’m not convinced though. Tabloid’s first priority is selling as many papers as they can. If they thought that juicy stories on McCain would sell their papers, they would, regardless of the political inclinations of the editors-in-chief. I suspect it’s more to do with the editors making a judgement that readers wouldn’t care too much to read about McCain’s womanising, either because of the reader’s political inclinations, or because old and not particularly attractive men cheating on their wives just isn’t enough of a story.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:37:14 +0000

Sorry – here’s a translation. If there was half as much dirt flying around about Obama it would have been all over the papers and a big drama too. Think Bill Clinton who before his election had to deal with endless publicity (all of it pretty much on the money) about what a womaniser he was. Well McCain looks like being all that and more!

By: Pappinbarra Fox

Pappinbarra Fox — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:36:15 +0000

No I got it wwrong having read it again – he is not saying only half the dirt rather as much dirt but at least half credible. Not sure I am any the wiser.

By: Pappinbarra Fox

Pappinbarra Fox — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:33:49 +0000

NPOV, yes but the full stop at the end of the first sentence is not needed since the second begins with a conjunction – I just read it as one sentence – which may have caused some of my dilemma. I think he is saying that Obama’s story would be in the tabloids if there was only half the dirt on Obama that appears to be on McCain. McCain seems to have been left alone by the tabloids – at least until very recently – a proposition I only figured out after chasing the link that Nicholas referred to.

By: NPOV

NPOV — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:55:47 +0000

I assume he meant “there’d be a snowflake’s chance in hell of it not being all over the papers”. Just like I assume you meant “second sentence”.

By: Pappinbarra Fox

Pappinbarra Fox — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:44:40 +0000

Nicholas – I just did not understand your first sentence – can you translate it into plain english for us please.