Can someone tell me how to post pictures on here? Including what file format to use?  I tried the other day but I couldn't get it to work.  I was assuming that a .PNG file format was necessary, but apparently not.  

DB, only recently I've been able to copy & paste pics from the internets, but yesterday I tried copying a file (my own picture) and that doesn't seem to work. I'm pretty primitive, so maybe somebody else knows how to do that. As far as the pix from the web I was able to post, I think they were mostly JPEGs.

Thanks Col, I was trying to post a pic from my desktop, so I'm guessing MMfA doesn't allow that.  It's a shame, cuz I had a perfect pic of Steve Doocy with "fail" written across his forehead because let's face it, Steve Doocy fails at life.

Can someone tell me how to post pictures on here? Including what file format to use?  I tried the other day but I couldn't get it to work.  I was assuming that a .PNG file format was necessary, but apparently not.

For starters, the picture has to be hosted somewhere on the Internet - I usually use Google's image search to find the image I want.  Once you find it, right-click on the image and select Copy from the pop-up list.  Then go the the reply window in MMFA, right-click where you want the image to appear, and select Paste from the pop-up list.

That's how I posted these images:

Thanks WZ.  I wanted to post a pic of Steve Doocy's mug with the words "fail" written in bold red ink like the blog fail dogs.  Next time I'll make sure the photo is already on the intertubes.  Thanks again!

Next time I'll make sure the photo is already on the intertubes. 

If you want to post pictures like that, you can set up an account at Photobucket, upload them there, and then copy them from your Photobucket page to MMFA.

www.photobucket.com

WZ you just opened a Pandora's box. I suspect MMFA will shut this down as soon as it gets abused by some-- which it will, soon.

  I e-mailed HardBall and letters@msnbc.com with similiar facts provided by MM. asking them to correct this mistake and they haven't.  To use a poll where the conclusion is mixed just belittles the point Matthews is trying to make. He is just making up stuff as he goes.  I hope he doesn't replace Russert on Sundays!

Beyond the conclusion being mixed... is no one else bothered by the fact that Matthews thinks nothing of labeling the poll's findings about white suburban women as "SUBURBAN WOMEN"?  Are we to assume that Matthews thinks that the term 'suburban' automatically implies 'white'? 

MATTHEWS: "McCain leads among suburban women by six."

No, even disregarding the issue with the poll's margin of error, that's not what the poll indicated.  According to MSNBC's original report on the results of the NBC/WSJ poll, "McCain leads Obama among white suburban women (44-38)."

Does no one else find this implicit assumption that the categories "suburban women" and "white suburban women" are identical to be unsettling?

Good point Vystotsky, i knew there was something else bugging me about this poll and sometimes the obvious is hard to see, no excuse I guess I have to sharpen my crap detector, thanks for the post !

Yeah, I found that unsettling as well.  And what I can't figure out from that poll is; how many of the 1000 people who took part in it identified themselves as "white suburban woman"?  

"based on a sample size of 110 within the larger poll"

 

Never mind, I read slow today... 

But this is why this is not trivial: not only is Matthews misrepresenting the margin of error so that it seems far lower than it actually is, but he's simultaneously making it seem as though this data was drawn from a larger demographic slice than it really was. The margin of error for using about 100 people to represent all white suburban voters was high enough to begin with: Matthews compounds the problem by conflating white suburban women with the even larger demographic category of all suburban women.

And that's the most generous interpretation of this mistake.  There's the much uglier possibility that whoever created this graphic simply thought, "White, suburban... what's the difference?  We'll just say suburban.  It takes less space and, you know, people get what that word means."

Agreed. The prior item did have "white suburban women"

http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/hardball-20080612-suburban2.jpg

Not sure why they dropped it here.

In any case, for Matthews to again spend another segment of his show telling his viewers that 48 white suburban women said they'd vote for McCain is suspect at best.

Wait -- where did that screenshot come from?  If MSNBC had it available and consciously deleted the term "white" then this is quite significant and should be explained.  Otherwise, it appears to me that someone at MSNBC thinks that the description "white suburban" is redundant.  (And perhaps at MMFA as well.  Why did no one catch this when writing this post?)

It could simply be a graphics snafu, I think you're reading too much into it, frankly.

How can you dismiss this as a simple snafu ("woops, dunno what happened to that word!  silly me...") when a previous graphic had been made for the exact same poll that correctly identified the demographic subsets? Furthermore, it wasn't just graphics: the copy that Matthews read didn't include the correct description either.

Tommy, I really don't understand your objection.  This isn't some case where people are differing over opinion: this is a case where MSNBC did not report the data from its own poll accurately.  It wasn't accurate in the graphic. It wasn't accurate in what the host reported orally. It wasn't accurate about the margin of error in its polling data.  It conflated two distinct demographic groups even though its previous reports didn't.

I'm curious: why aren't you the least bit interested in seeing a news organization held accountable for reporting accurately? Isn't that, you know, the job of a news medium? How am I making too much of a factual error in reporting?

Let me be clear: I'm not saying that this means MSNBC and Chris Matthews are a bunch of racists and everyone at MMFA is a racist for not noticing the mistake.  I just think it's worth pointing out that this aspect of Matthews' report does not correspond to the facts as we know them.  It's... what's the word... misinformation?  a false claim?

At the very least a correction should be made. It may be a totally insignificant distinction in the polling data.  Perhaps the numbers for suburban white women and suburban women in general just magically happen to be identical.  Still, it's worth noting that these were polled as two distinct demographic groups, because that's how the polling data was produced.  This is basic survey methodology for social scientists and journalists.

Are you quite finished?

I never said anything about the poll results, this was covered days ago here and the poll results should have included the much larger margin of error, I wasn't making any excuse for that.

What I was responding to was your implication that there was some racially charged motive behind "white suburban" being redundant, as you asked.  As I said, I think you were reading something into it.  I don't err or the side of that impression as a rule.

Tommy: Are you quite finished?

Yes, I was, and obviously so.  What a strange thing to ask someone who had clearly finished his comment and was inviting response.  (Somehow "are you quite finished?" just doesn't carry the same discursive punch when applied on a discussion board.)

Anyway, sorry if I ranted and rambled. In response to the rest of your comments I'll be sure to make my reply as direct and brief as possible:

I see.

That screenshot is from the June 12 broadcast and was included in the prior item:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806130003?f=h_latest 

What's really scary about this conversation is that we are all so concerned - and why. Why? Because we KNOW that America is just as full of  "jump on the bandwagon" voters as it is voters who would only vote a straight party ticket. What does that tell you about the  American voter and the real power of the mainstream media? As unbelievable as a 3rd Bush term might sound when it comes to the logical choice of the voters this fall - I really don't think  The Dems can drop their fists for one second in this General Election. More than ever before we have to get the word out whenever another lie or exaggeration is uttered - and call the opposition on their every move. It really gets old - but the only way to fight lies is with the truth.

By the way Amy Goddwin was a pleasant surprise to see on a MSM outlet.  I know its a long shot but she would be a wonderful host to replace Mr. Russert on Sunday.

Sorry it's Amy Goodman...

Amy would be wonderful. Instead of horrid hateful hatful of hotair harridans like Heidi Harris; however, Amy has healing heart with heaps of hope.

Just had to get that alliteration out of my system ;-)

Hey Mary, you're jonsing for some more alliterations, I can tell.

And Amy Goodman would be great! 

Actually, Amy's always an amiable alternative.

While Tweety is a tedious toad.  :-)

Regrets re: Russert.  R.I.P.

There is another way to look at the lack of significance of this statistic.  Rather than saying that it fails to meet the standard of 95% confidence that is usually used, we can ask at what level of confidence is this?  It turns out that if the two candidates really have equal support among white suburban women, there is a 50% chance that the poll would have shown one with a lead of six points or more.  The confidence level is thus just 50%.  A flip of the coin.

Another way to look at it is to ask what is the probability that Obama really leads McCain in this area.  That comes to 25% (for Obama to really lead, there is a 50% chance that the poll is off by more than six points, and within that there is a 50% chance that the poll is off in favor of McCain).  Like the Lakers, I am sure Obama would like better odds; but it is not time to give up the fight.

Then there is the question, why are we concentrating so much on one statistic?  Out of all the breakdowns of subgroups in all the polls, this is the only one that Matthews can highlight that McCain leads?  If so, that speaks pretty strongly of Obama's broad appeal.

Is the word in the editorial rooms that the case must be made for any kind of race? It seems that way. One of the memes is that since BushieCo having the lowest ratings ever, shouldn't Obama have a bigger poll lead (conveniently ignoring that GWB isn't running), and also (one I heard this morning) is that Obama didn't get the "bump" from being named nominee. Instead of analyzing why that was "expected" it is simply used as a negative story against the Dems.

And, btw, among Russian American hemaphrodites with hairy backs McCain has a distinct lead of 54-46. Print it, Chris Matthews!

Another question. I wonder, especially after I read the NYTimes magazine profile on CM, whether he is vying, behind the scenes, for the "Meet the Press" host job. Wouldn't that make an interesting book?

But I thought women were emotional idiots who just vote for a Sugar Daddy? Or do they just figure McCain can teach them how to pick someone with money?

If you break it down further to white, suburban, blonde, pain-killer addicted trophy wives, McCain's lead increases to a statistically significant 100%.

I hope this works:

Just as conservatives should not talk economics until they actualy KNOW a damn thing about it, these idiots shouldn't talk stat's until they know what the hell they're talking about. 

Again, I normally don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity, but I'm getting a little tired of these guys' incompetence helping the Republicans, hurting the Democrats and huring the country.

It's too bad Tweety has turned into such a tool for McCain and the Republican Party - he could have had himself a real nice job offer the next few days.:)

Give Tweety a break!!

He can't be bothered with actual journalism.  Come on now!!  Aren't we expecting a little much from a corporate talking head?

He's just trying to find something--anything!--to show us all how well Grampy is doing.  The old guy needs a little momentum, a little push to put him over the top.

Adding " white suburban Women " shows the DESPERATION of the Cable Pravda Shows, to show McSame is leading somewhere . What's next , he's leading Obama with toothless , flag pin wearing women who watch Fox.

Their " road to the White House " show is just as rigged with S. Hayes from the right wing Weekly Standard, Blankley from the right wing Moonie paper the Times and Harwood from the WSJ , paper for the elite and oh there's Rachel, but more importantly , David Gregory controlling the message , " McCain is separating himself from Bush , on environmental issues "

 

Chris Matthews seems distracted and preoccupied while he's conducting his interviews.  Not focused, jumping all over the place.

I know he's upset that Hillary lost.  It shows.

Things are going so bad in the country for the Republicans, if JSM is within 20 points of BHO, he would hold a "statistically significant" lead. If he were within 30 points, many would consider it a dead heat going into November.

So McCain has a statistical lead over Obama with dimwitted trophy wives who jabber incessantly on cell phones while driving SUVs. I would think that would be more a cause for embarrassment than  anything else. You can focus on any subgroup that suits your argument. We already know that Republicans have a lead with the greedy self-absorbed and arrogant crowd. This group or horrid excuses for human beings is a mere subgroup of that. What next, will they tell us that McCain has a statistical lead among Mafia wifes?

Chris Matthews is a babbling fool.  Everytime I hear someone suggest "Tweety Bird" as a replacement for Tim Russert, I cringe.

 

Good call by MMFA.

Theses guys are doing all they can to keep JohnnyMac relavant,But the debates are coming and we will see,what they know to be true and that is JohnnyMac is going to be trounced in the debates.I can't wait.