|
Neosatriani (July 15, 2008 at 8:12 am)
Maybe to make my point a bit clearer. My friend just linked me a video of Bush making an ass of himself. That counts as one view on that video. I hate Bush but therefore under this logic, does my view count as a positive viewing?
Neosatriani (July 15, 2008 at 8:08 am)
Thats not what i am saying. You can't honestly say there that all those videos will be positive about a certain candidate, just like you can't say that they will equally be positive or negative. Its very possible that the negative views outweigh the positive. But the main point still stands, the media has way to much influence over "democracy" but youtube is a non-dictating media, meaning that you can search for what you want not what the media is telling you, you need to know. So it is better.
minivanjack (July 15, 2008 at 1:58 am)
That was pointed out before. That is a valid point and it causes Obama to show more interest, but not over Paul from April to November of '07.
minivanjack (July 15, 2008 at 1:55 am)
If people actually do search for things they hate, they would do that for all candidates, not just Ron Paul. Interest is interest, search numbers are search numbers. To say a search counts for one candidate but not another is just skewed logic.
PimpjuceNM (July 15, 2008 at 12:37 am)
This just goes to show that the media always has and always will be a propoganda tool. And as long as it's in the hands of corporations it will only serve to further the motives of the shareholders and investors...i stopped watching a LOT of news broadcasters time ago (unless it's a live broadcast) coz they're all full of shit!! Not always but most of the time anyway. It's hardly ever unbiased info.
Neosatriani (July 14, 2008 at 8:43 pm)
But surely a major proportion of the youtube videos will negative? meaning their might be as much hate as there is like? Maybe im not following it all that well.
MsPlaisdeKeys (July 14, 2008 at 7:16 pm)
I'm not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but: the biggest flaw of the video is the presumption that Google users search by using the candidates' full names, which is hardly the case. When searching for Barack Obama, most people, as most headlines, will only use 'Obama'; similarly, when googling for Hillary Clinton, the majority of users will use 'Clinton', simply because it's faster. In the case of Ron Paul, you need to use his full name simply because 'Paul' won't offer the desired hits.
swyft187 (July 13, 2008 at 6:15 am)
Tags don't mean shit.
oneredspanky (July 12, 2008 at 4:47 pm)
I dont think he missed the point at all. Hes simply trolling, trying to set up strawman arguments.
minivanjack (July 11, 2008 at 6:11 pm)
You have missed the point. This is not about Ron Paul it is about media failure to recognize and report public interest in a candidate. |
