美國著名宗教研究組織巴拿研究組指出，除非民主黨總統候選人奧巴馬在大選前出現「政治自殺」行為，否則他將在十一月輕易擊敗共和黨候選人麥凱恩，入主白宮。
按巴拿研究組一調查，就算福音派群體努力支持共和黨，也無法扭轉劣勢。因為奧巴馬有六項優勢：
一、在很可能會投票的人中，奧巴馬的支持率以50%比35%領先。
二、未決定會投票給誰的登記選民不多，只有15%。如果麥凱恩要勝出，他要全取這些游離票。
三、支持奧巴馬的選民中，有73%說「絕對會投他一票」，但支持麥凱恩的選民中，只有59%有同樣的表示。
四、支持奧巴馬的選民中，有53%說有信心奧巴馬會勝出，但麥凱恩那邊只有31%。過去數據顯示，選民信心是誰人勝選的一個指標。
五、民主黨員比共和黨員更熱切期待這大選，兩者願意投票的比例分別是48%和30%。
六、有很多年輕人會首次投票，他們大都傾向支持奧巴馬。
故巴拿研究組認為，麥凱恩若要勝出，便需要寄望奇蹟出現。
（取材巴拿研究組網頁）
（www.christiantimes.org.hk，時代論壇每日快拍，2008.6.12）
To Mr. John Doe
Maybe it is helpful for you to note that some people here have a history to attack certain people. They would rather beat the bush, deny a lot of things, change the subject, tease and show contempt, call names and say that others are calling names in order to make the attack look more powerful.Last comment from John Doe
This calling of net mob is not appreciated.
I thought Cheung's translation was well done. Timely too.
I may even find myself agreeing with what it said. But, the fact remains: CT did unevenly covered the US Election. I believe A Doctor's post was addressed to CT, NOT Cheung!!!
To the Anonymous below...
"Net mob?" You said???
So far, only A Doctor, John Doe and one Anonymous (I shall call them The Three) appeared to support each other. And you labeled them “net mob”!!!
For the sake of argument, let's assume I am naive and dumb, OR that I don’t quite understand what you really meant by net-mobbing, allow me to ask you:
(statements in quotes are yours):
a) In what ways have The Three “ …cornered particular people, thinking that those people are bad guys and deserve attack or even elimination..."??
b) Since The Three said Yes to each other, ok, ok, tell us in what ways did they detray “…weakness of the view that they support"??? And what were they “…nit-picking" about???
If I am not courteous, I may also call you “nit-picking”, even name-calling, since you called The Three “net mob” for no good reason.
And if I am not gracious, I may openly think you and Cheung belong to the same "net mob"!!! Or are you one and the same entity?
Come one, say something useful. Do not just call people names.
net mob
As I observe the net mob here, they likes cornering particular people, thinking that those people are bad guys and deserve attack or even elimination. In Chinese, 狙擊. But the assumption whether those people are bad is ungrounded, just subjective emotion. Net mob likes saying yes to each other in order to make a loud voice, regardless of the weakness of the view that they support. Net mob likes nit-picking. Minute or not, to them, the sheer number of criticism counts.Disagree!
It was plain dialog - back and forth exchange. Not "net mob".
What is "net mob" by the way.
really net mob!
see titleNo need for this
--- > 現在的回應立場不存在利益關係。
No suspicion implied!
thanks for speaking up, John
sameCheung misunderstood "A Doctor"
This response from Cheung did not surprise me!
A Doctor merely mentioned the fact that CT had lop-sidedly covered Obama. A Doctor DID NOT say Cheung's piece WAS SELECTIVE coverage. The entire coverage of CT so far on US election did give people the impression of selective coverage!!
Since when did Cheung need to feel he was CT's spokesman?
The answer to Cheung is straight forward: A non-selective coverage of US election should cover all three lead candidates, and NOT just Obama.
Will we expect another post from Cheung on McCain?
怎樣才不是 "selective"?
A Doctor 指這報導是 selective coverage ，這是 "coverage of Senator Obama" 。但這個定性本身就很有問題。巴拿研究組只是把民調資料的分析寫出來，因何會成為有 "an unusual interest in Obama"？如果資料分析說麥凱恩會選出，題目自會寫成「美國宗教研究組織指麥凱恩將當選總統」。那會否就變成 selective coverage of Senator McCain？恐怕 A Doctor 只是不喜歡有消息指 McCain 會輸，而不是報導本身有偏袒。把自己不喜歡的消息強說成報導有偏袒，這才是在誤導讀者。Selective press coverage
To the best of my recollection, this is CT's 5th press coverage of Senator Obama since the end of last year.
CT has expressed an unusual interest in Obama, to the negligence of both Senators Clinton and McCain. Our HK readers deserve to see a more balanced treatment of "your favorite" Obama!
When will CT say anything about McCain? As to Clinton, I know it is too late.
