Interesting post-mortem on their coverage. I wonder if Howell is going to make up for treating Obama with kid gloves by regularly savaging the Obama administration on any and every point possible. Probably. Look for a sharp swing to the right from the Post soon - they are jumping out of the ObamaTank.

Newspapers shouldn't be endorsing candidates anyway. It violates the principle of journalistic neutrality.

AntiNorm: Newspapers shouldn't be endorsing candidates anyway. It violates the principle of journalistic neutrality.

It was never a problem in the past. Media used to be open about their slant. Things are only bad because they hide it now.

AntiNorm: Newspapers shouldn't be endorsing candidates anyway. It violates the principle of journalistic neutrality.

The idea of journalists as disinterested reporters of the facts has always been a myth anyway. I'd much rather have them just wear their allegiances on their sleeve.

She looks like an ombudsman.

Shrew2u: treating Obama with kid gloves

That's not what the article said, despite the submitter's attempt to make it seem so.

Now if we can can just get Fox News to admit they're a mouthpiece for the retard wing of the Republican party, everything will be swell.

_{/not saying all Republicans are retards}

Procedural Texture: Now if we can can just get Fox News to admit they're a mouthpiece for the retard wing of the Republican party, everything will be swell.

There's a retard wing of the Republican party? I thought it was the whole party.

MacEnvy: Shrew2u: treating Obama with kid gloves

That's not what the article said, despite the submitter's attempt to make it seem so.

WARNING: Skip to last paragraph to avoid contracting tl;dr.

Howell's piece might as well have said that the Post treated Obama with kid gloves...since she seems to be uninterested in reality. Reality being that, had the GOP fielded a candidate like Obama and the Dems fielded a candidate like McCain, the Post would have been swimming in the GOP tank.

An historically-significant candidate will draw more interest than one who is not historically significant.

A candidate whose proposals garner generally positive public reaction will draw more interest than a candidate whose proposals do not.

A candidate who speaks eloquently and intelligently (from a teleprompter; this Fark Independent talking point brought to you by Tillamook Cheese Company: want a little cheese with that whine?) will draw more interest than a candidate who sounds as though he is recovering from a recent brain injury.

A candidate who routinely draws tens of thousands of people to his public appearances will draw more interest than a candidate who routinely inflates his attendance figures to avoid embarrassment.

A candidate who reaches out to potential voters using a vast array of hi-tech and low-tech methods will draw more interest than one who demonstrates precious little competence for any method of potential voter contact.

A candidate who has less previous exposure to a national audience will draw more interest than a candidate whose been on the national scene long enough to have lost the SC primary in both 1900 and 2000.

A candidate who offers a certain mystique in that he is still married to his first wife and values his home life will draw more interest than a candidate who reminds us of how low humans can stoop in their family relationships, since he was a notorious c*ckhound who threw his crippled first wife under the bus for a beer heiress nearly half his age.

Obama drew more positive interest from the public and from the Post's writers because he was the more interesting and positive candidate.

Howell's assertion that the Post should have spent more time investigating non issues, like his drug use from three decades ago, was pretty farking dumb - about as irrelevant as investigating the whores McCain porked while he was married to Carole.

Howell's assertion that Rezko should have been more thoroughly investigated dismisses the fact that Chicago newspapers have been crawling over Obama's ass about Rezko for years, and haven't found much more than the idiotic $104k backyard expansion.

In other words, Howell's writing staff were in the generally-unenviable position of having more positive things to say about Obama than negative. It would be one thing if they were hiding negative information about Obama - they weren't. They ran negative pieces about Obama...there just wasn't enough to match McCain's bungling, blundering, impulsive and ultimately implosive candidacy, which was fertile ground for a huge amount of negative press. In the end, if the Post was "in the tank" for Obama, it is more a reflection of McCain's clusterfark of a candidacy than any dirty librul leanings from the Post.

Shrew2u: A whole lotta good points



I big, hearty THIS. I would also add that Ayers and Wright were heavily covered during the primaries, making them old news. So the Republican petulance that these "important issues" weren't covered rings hollow. You can't expect newspapers to dredge up items that have already been beaten into the ground just because you need free attack ad material.

Churchill2004: AntiNorm: Newspapers shouldn't be endorsing candidates anyway. It violates the principle of journalistic neutrality.

The idea of journalists as disinterested reporters of the facts has always been a myth anyway. I'd much rather have them just wear their allegiances on their sleeve.

No, Reporters shouldn't have allegiances to parties. But, reporters (and people for that matter) should have opinions on issues and substance. They do have an ethical obligation to look into the counterarguments to their favored viewpoint and check their validity.

A newspapers decision to cover a story or endorse a candidate should be based on issues. If you favor environmentalism, for instance, you might choose and volunteer to cover environmental stories. Further, the editor might agree with you and choose to endorse (usually the Democrat) a candidate based on his/her stance on that issue.

Nobody should be a "partisan." It's irrational- not to Godwin, but it is ultimately what leads to things like Nazism (or religious extremism). You have a requirement, as a human, to think about what you are being told. That is the difference between most newspapers, MSNBC and Fox and CNN. CNN has no opinions on anything- they just cover every story in the simplest possible terms while conveying a PITA meter to make sure they don't offend anyone. Fox just repeats whatever the Republican party says at face value with no analysis or thought into whether it is accurate. At least some newspapers and MSNBC try to provide analysis, although both usually fail miserably.

I mean, we keep attacking the "liberal bias" of the mainstream media, yet most organizations consistently failed to point out that "Drill Baby Drill," charges of socialism, attacks about Bill Ayers, attacks on Rev. Wright, etc... were all patently false. The media should use the example of the Fairness Doctrine and provide voice to controversial viewpoints; however, they also have the obligation to point out when lies are being told. They have the obligation to stop providing voice when the lies keep getting told. They have the obligation to raise issues with the candidates stances. They have an obligation to tell the truth when the candidates lie. The problem is, and has been for a long time, the media focuses on what we want to hear, not what we need to hear.

Shrew2u: A candidate who has less previous exposure to a national audience will draw more interest than a candidate whose been on the national scene long enough to have lost the SC primary in both 1900 and 2000.

The town that the Post is in went for Obama 93% to 7% for McCain. I guess this article explains why.

Seeing as how honest self-analysis is not a strong Conservative trait, I wonder what the Washington Times' inward look will reveal about its coverage.

I can damn near guarantee that before that will ever happen, the US will elect a bla...

/good for us

Yes, because everyone does and agrees with everything they ever read at all times without exception.

/nice try assmitter

AntiNorm: Newspapers shouldn't be endorsing candidates anyway. It violates the principle of journalistic neutrality.

^^^ THIS ^^^

Procedural Texture: Now if we can can just get Fox News to admit they're a mouthpiece for the retard wing of the Republican party, everything will be swell.

Mabye when we get MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC & The New York Times, etc etc to admit they're the mouthpiece for the entire liberal side? That'd be peachy.

drestin: Procedural Texture: Now if we can can just get Fox News to admit they're a mouthpiece for the retard wing of the Republican party, everything will be swell.

Mabye when we get MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC & The New York Times, etc etc to admit they're the mouthpiece for the entire liberal side? That'd be peachy.

The thread was going so well, then you read shiat like this.

Interestingly, the article never admits what the headline indicates that the article admits.

It only admits to covering Obama more than McCain.

So if instead of John McCain for an opponent, Barack Obama was running against someone who personified evil, the media should still be totally unbaised, offer no opinion as to which candidate is the better choice? Sure, Mister Super Evil eats babies alive, but for the sake of parity consider that Barack Obama was a community organizer.

Things are not always fair, even if there are rules to a contest one side can have the better team or position and dominate. If the rightwingnuts want to get better coverage in the media, they should try to find better candidates and better positions on the issues rather than constantly trying to play the refs.

AntiNorm: Newspapers shouldn't be endorsing candidates anyway. It violates the principle of journalistic neutrality.

the editorial board endorses. not the journalists.
contrary to what some might tell you news and opinion are not the same. although there is positive and negative news for candidates.
it's not the reporter's job to try and balance it,when reality itself isn't balanced.

one campaign is projecting a positive and unifying message and the other is projecting a negative and divisive message.

One is new and vibrant the other old and tired. One is about change in a time of steep decline. The other is representative of why it's so.

One is brilliant and well spoken. Thoughtful,deliberate and respects others. The other is reactionary,erratic,poorly managed and exhibits bad judgment.



those are just the facts.

Befuddled: So if instead of John McCain for an opponent, Barack Obama was running against someone who personified evil, the media should still be totally unbaised, offer no opinion as to which candidate is the better choice? Sure, Mister Super Evil eats babies alive, but for the sake of parity consider that Barack Obama was a community organizer.

Exactly- there are only two political choices in life: commie or fascist. Some people try to be neutral, but that's usually when they talk about communism and fascism at the same time. Every other time you are either commie or fascist.

Further, it is a universal law of politics- discovered by Sir Drew Newton- that all the forces of communism and fascism must balance each other out or the political world will implode and a dreaded Democracy will form. That is bad because it would imply you are talking to the people and not just at them.

AntiNorm: Newspapers shouldn't be endorsing candidates anyway. It violates the principle of journalistic neutrality.

Editorial boards (which make these endorsements) are opinions, they are not neutral and rarely have been. They are also not acting as journalists.
For example, David Brooks and Paul Krugman are complete tools, very opinionated, and in no way journalists.

And from one of her quotes: The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13.
Well, maybe that's because their op-ed writers (opinions, rarely journalists, remember) saw more in Obama than McCain. Oh wait!
The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Anyone notice that she used Senator for McCain and neither Senator nor President-Elect for Obama, and no title for Senator Clinton? I'm sure it was just an oversight, no bias there. Then again, she also used party for Obama and nothing for McCain, who's party is currently in major need of repair.

Let alone the standard refrain of:One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska.
Not that Biden (another missing Senator!) has 20+ years of material and personal connections, and Palin - Gov. Palin - had none of this.

The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

so, the conservatives were obviously tiled liberal!! omg!!

/"in the tank" doesn't necessarily mean unfair liberal bias. America voted Obama, even though it's a largely right-leaning populace.

Hobodeluxe:
those are just the facts.

It amazes me that we are even still having the debate when most Republicans are now free to admit that McCain ran a horrible campaign and made a significant number of errors; and very few are hesitant to admit it (outside of the rabid partisans who are even more tenacious than Detroit Lions fans).

Hobodeluxe: the editorial board endorses. not the journalists.

*shakes fist at Hobodeluxe*

Nothing against McCain. I'm sure he's an ok sort of fellow. A lot of people speak highly of him that have known him for a while. But he's not presidential material. he's not that sharp. his grades in school proved that. He's a risk taker. Maybe even dangerously so.(choosing Palin) He's probably doing what he thinks is right or what he's been told but he's not even sharp enough to know he's surrounded by morons and traitors like his campaign team.
His ambition had caused him to sway on his core ideals. Caressing Dobson's sack to get his endorsement. Same with the other agents of intolerance. Flipping on the Bush tax cuts and his own middle class tax program that was a lot like Obama's is now back a few years ago. He lost his way and was led astray by ambition and a lack of steadfast principle.
It's been that way since he dumped his first wife.

He's a lot like Dubyah in the respect that he's lived in his father's shadow and I think he felt the need to prove himself.
Like I said he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. he was probably humiliated back in the day for almost flunking out of the academy and his dad had to pull strings to get him his rank and keeping his wings after a lot of mishaps most likely.
He's compensating and that is driving his ambition.
he's still trying to prove himself.
Which is why he was so emotional at his concession speech.
He's not a bad man. He just wasn't the man for the job.
It's probably better for him that he didn't get the job.
I don't envy anyone who is sincere in trying to fix things.

FTA: But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

A big not this. The last thing people should be focused on when choosing a leader is whether they accidentally kicked a puppy when they were 5. If something in their past can be shown to have demonstrative impact on their current life, then yes, maybe you could talk about it. But beyond that, who cares what they did when they were a teenager?

Bhruic: FTA: But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

yeah and they didn't probe deeply enough into McCain's whore-hopping either. Most people don't know the story of how he treated his first wife and kids.
They hardly mentioned the Keating five.

Bhruic: FTA: But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

A big not this. The last thing people should be focused on when choosing a leader is whether they accidentally kicked a puppy when they were 5. If something in their past can be shown to have demonstrative impact on their current life, then yes, maybe you could talk about it. But beyond that, who cares what they did when they were a teenager?

The thing that bothers me about attacks like that is that it implies that you can never change or learn from anything. I thought Keating 5 should have been off limits because McCain obviously learned from it.

/Not to mention there are a lot of people who use drugs when they were young who quit when life becomes more realistic.

sloppy shoes: It amazes me that we are even still having the debate when most Republicans are now free to admit that McCain ran a horrible campaign and made a significant number of errors; and very few are hesitant to admit it (outside of the rabid partisans who are even more tenacious than Detroit Lions fans).

What surprised me was that even after Obama ran such a brilliant error free campaign, even after McCain ran such a poor and error ridden campaign, Obama only won 52% of the vote.

Mr Logo: sloppy shoes: It amazes me that we are even still having the debate when most Republicans are now free to admit that McCain ran a horrible campaign and made a significant number of errors; and very few are hesitant to admit it (outside of the rabid partisans who are even more tenacious than Detroit Lions fans).

What surprised me was that even after Obama ran such a brilliant error free campaign, even after McCain ran such a poor and error ridden campaign, Obama only won 52% of the vote.

We have become hyper-partisan and there are a significant amount of people who vote on issues like pro-life or some anti-government or anti-tax plan. Arguably the "Joe-the-plumber" stance did affect quite a few people, despite it being false; and there is always the reality that usually Congress sets taxes, not the president.

sloppy shoes: Mr Logo: sloppy shoes: It amazes me that we are even still having the debate when most Republicans are now free to admit that McCain ran a horrible campaign and made a significant number of errors; and very few are hesitant to admit it (outside of the rabid partisans who are even more tenacious than Detroit Lions fans).

What surprised me was that even after Obama ran such a brilliant error free campaign, even after McCain ran such a poor and error ridden campaign, Obama only won 52% of the vote.

We have become hyper-partisan and there are a significant amount of people who vote on issues like pro-life or some anti-government or anti-tax plan. Arguably the "Joe-the-plumber" stance did affect quite a few people, despite it being false; and there is always the reality that usually Congress sets taxes, not the president.

I don't get single-issue voters. To me, saying "sure, you can run this country onto the track of destruction, empty the treasury for the benefit of your friends, take away my civil rights, and kill all the sand monkeys you want, as long as you don't allow homo's to marry" seems so infinitely ignorant to me.

And yet, there's a lot of people doing exactly that.

Apples to hand grenades. You can't look at two people running very different campaigns and expect identical coverage. One ran a campaign focused on what he planned to do and received positive coverage and analysis of what he said. The other concentrated on misrepresenting his opponent and was called out on his lies.

If I were forced to compare which beverage is better for a child, I would not be able to write an equal number of positive things about milk and Drano. It's pretty likely I'd end up showing a pretty strong pro-milk bias. There comes a point where being responsible and objective demands showing a more negative picture of one candidate than another.

Right-wingers who think the media has a liberal bias expect to have their opinions about a given story analyzed from that perspective in the report itself. In other words, if you have a right-wing view of what something "means", and a media outlet doesn't cover it in that manner, you're going to assume media bias. Too often, unfortunately, having right-leaning politics comes with a nasty tendency to assume everything not espousing your analysis of a story is being unfair.

To someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Hobodeluxe: AntiNorm: Newspapers shouldn't be endorsing candidates anyway. It violates the principle of journalistic neutrality.

the editorial board endorses. not the journalists.
contrary to what some might tell you news and opinion are not the same. although there is positive and negative news for candidates.
it's not the reporter's job to try and balance it,when reality itself isn't balanced.

one campaign is projecting a positive and unifying message and the other is projecting a negative and divisive message.

One is new and vibrant the other old and tired. One is about change in a time of steep decline. The other is representative of why it's so.

One is brilliant and well spoken. Thoughtful,deliberate and respects others. The other is reactionary,erratic,poorly managed and exhibits bad judgment.



those are just the facts.

One is old and busted, the other is the new hottness.

Sorry, i just had to.

On a related note FOX News's slogan is flawed in addition to why it's more obviously incorrect: The "balanced" part is problematic. Balance implies that each story has a left-wing interpretation and a right-wing interpretation, to be properly managed and weighted equally.

Watch out for false equivalence. There's a tendency to overcompensate for fear of appearing biased. Beware anyone saying "both candidates suck" -- one candidate, given the available evidence, may suck more.

Hence how stories about the demagoguery and incitement to fear and hatred at Palin rallies, leading to people shouting "TERRORIST", "TREASON", and "KILL HIM", was tempered by the writer or anchor noting that a few people at Obama rallies were wearing "Sarah Palin is a coont" t-shirts. The Secret Service reported recently that death threats against the Obama family went up as Palin started riling up her crowds. These are not sins of equal magnitude, and don't deserve equal weight or inserted "balance". It was much, much worse from the McCain campaign (mostly because it was being done BY HIS RUNNING MATE).

If the roles were reversed, conservatives would find themselves suddenly able to appreciate the difference in degree of intensity, intent, and circumstances of incitement. Because for Republican outrage artists, it's not a double-standard if you just apply a new, different standard to every single incident. Moral relativism means you never have to be a complete hypocrite, as long as you can slide that scale of outrage up or down on cue. Unfortunately, the media hates being yelled at, so they've trained themselves to always set their scales at an even zero, no matter what the story is.

Shrew2u: A candidate who has less previous exposure to a national audience will draw more interest than a candidate whose been on the national scene long enough to have lost the SC primary in both 1900 and 2000.

GAT_00: AntiNorm: Newspapers shouldn't be endorsing candidates anyway. It violates the principle of journalistic neutrality.

It was never a problem in the past. Media used to be open about their slant. Things are only bad because they hide it now.

In the origional (sp?) lincoln-douglass debates, the first debate proved how partisan news was back then...one newspaper said at the very end Lincoln won a great victory and everyone partied...
the other that Douglass won and Lincoln's folks practically cried..

it was the same event

Shrew2u: MacEnvy: Shrew2u: treating Obama with kid gloves

That's not what the article said, despite the submitter's attempt to make it seem so.

WARNING: Skip to last paragraph to avoid contracting tl;dr.

Howell's piece might as well have said that the Post treated Obama with kid gloves...since she seems to be uninterested in reality. Reality being that, had the GOP fielded a candidate like Obama and the Dems fielded a candidate like McCain, the Post would have been swimming in the GOP tank.

An historically-significant candidate will draw more interest than one who is not historically significant.

A candidate whose proposals garner generally positive public reaction will draw more interest than a candidate whose proposals do not.

A candidate who speaks eloquently and intelligently (from a teleprompter; this Fark Independent talking point brought to you by Tillamook Cheese Company: want a little cheese with that whine?) will draw more interest than a candidate who sounds as though he is recovering from a recent brain injury.

A candidate who routinely draws tens of thousands of people to his public appearances will draw more interest than a candidate who routinely inflates his attendance figures to avoid embarrassment.

A candidate who reaches out to potential voters using a vast array of hi-tech and low-tech methods will draw more interest than one who demonstrates precious little competence for any method of potential voter contact.

A candidate who has less previous exposure to a national audience will draw more interest than a candidate whose been on the national scene long enough to have lost the SC primary in both 1900 and 2000.

A candidate who offers a certain mystique in that he is still married to his first wife and values his home life will draw more interest than a candidate who reminds us of how low humans can stoop in their family relationships, since he was a notorious c*ckhound who threw his crippled first wife under the bus for a beer heiress nearly half his age.

Obama drew more positive interest from the public and from the Post's writers because he was the more interesting and positive candidate.

Howell's assertion that the Post should have spent more time investigating non issues, like his drug use from three decades ago, was pretty farking dumb - about as irrelevant as investigating the whores McCain porked while he was married to Carole.

Howell's assertion that Rezko should have been more thoroughly investigated dismisses the fact that Chicago newspapers have been crawling over Obama's ass about Rezko for years, and haven't found much more than the idiotic $104k backyard expansion.

In other words, Howell's writing staff were in the generally-unenviable position of having more positive things to say about Obama than negative. It would be one thing if they were hiding negative information about Obama - they weren't. They ran negative pieces about Obama...there just wasn't enough to match McCain's bungling, blundering, impulsive and ultimately implosive candidacy, which was fertile ground for a huge amount of negative press. In the end, if the Post was "in the tank" for Obama, it is more a reflection of McCain's clusterfark of a candidacy than any dirty librul leanings from the Post.

Many good points. Hat tip.

Howell is grasping at straws to make the case that the campaign coverage was unfair. The Post's coverage, as with most of the so-called liberal media, was actually fairer than the McCain campaign deserved. McCain ran a terrible campaign, could not even excite his base, and then alienated moderates with his choice of Palin.

This data is interesting, FTA:
Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both

That the deficit between Obama and McCain is only 42 stories in a daily paper is actually very fair, probably even unnaturally fair, when you consider Obama just won a f*cking landslide in the election and generated sensational amounts of interest with his candidacy.

Note that Howell doesn't even bother to analyze the content of these stories - focusing only on editorials for the actual tone. Lazy. What point is it to have an ombudsperson if she won't actually look at the tone of the news coverage?

Howell also singles out the investigation of Palin's background as being unfair compared to Joe Biden. Let's compare: the Senator who has been just down the street for 30 years and is a completely known quantity vs. someone untested and unknown, a complete political newcomer who was suddenly in the running for a critical political office . The media has done its due diligence on Biden over a 30-year period, but had to scramble to get information on Palin and convey it to voters over a period of weeks. I'm sure Biden wishes he had had more coverage - it would have largely been positive, although again, not actually news.

Hobodeluxe: AntiNorm: Newspapers shouldn't be endorsing candidates anyway. It violates the principle of journalistic neutrality.

the editorial board endorses. not the journalists.
contrary to what some might tell you news and opinion are not the same. although there is positive and negative news for candidates.
it's not the reporter's job to try and balance it,when reality itself isn't balanced.

one campaign is projecting a positive and unifying message and the other is projecting a negative and divisive message.

One is new and vibrant the other old and tired. One is about change in a time of steep decline. The other is representative of why it's so.

One is brilliant and well spoken. Thoughtful,deliberate and respects others. The other is reactionary,erratic,poorly managed and exhibits bad judgment.



those are just the facts.

The problem with this argument is that you're saying that the campaign should spend its energy focused on marketing itself rather than its ideas. So much of this campaign has been Obama being a blank slate candidate. He's been so positive about everything that as soon as it was over he had to start backing off promises and "managing expectations".

GAT_00: AntiNorm: Newspapers shouldn't be endorsing candidates anyway. It violates the principle of journalistic neutrality.

It was never a problem in the past. Media used to be open about their slant. Things are only bad because they hide it now.

Newspapers use to be ethical? Have you ever heard of the terms "muckraking" and "yellow journalism"? Those terms were not born yesterday? As with most industries, journalism is no better and no worse than it has been in the past. The only thing that has changed is the whining of Republicans. Anyone that does not agree with 100 percent of the time is a liberal. WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!

Let me get this straight. The candidate who ran the overwhelmingly negative campaign wound up with more negative articles.

Quick, Martha, get me the smelling salts.

This is false equivalency or some other fancy schmancy type term.

That would be like saying their stories about crime are biased against the criminals, since all they're saying about them are bad things.

If you run a unmitigated idiot for a candidate, don't complain when the pointy top of her dunce cap pokes you in the eye

bobbette: Howell is grasping at straws to make the case that the campaign coverage was unfair. The Post's coverage, as with most of the so-called liberal media, was actually fairer than the McCain campaign deserved. McCain ran a terrible campaign, could not even excite his base, and then alienated moderates with his choice of Palin.

also, they questioned about ayers incessantly but paid no attention to mccain's relationship with g. gordon liddy. i don't think that relationship reflects poorly on mccain, but it was never brought up by the media. there are quite a few similar examples.

GAT_00: Media used to be open about their slant. Things are only bad because they hide it now.

The Washington Post hides its slant? They're doing it wrong.

turds like Chris Matthews already have stated they're tankage nut-hugging for Overlord of Changing the Earth Obama ... not news :P

MacEnvy 2008-11-09 01:43:12 AM
Shrew2u: treating Obama with kid gloves

That's not what the article said, despite the submitter's attempt to make it seem so.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what the article says, despite your attempt to deny it.

gimpmonkey: turds like Chris Matthews already have stated they're tankage nut-hugging for Overlord of Changing the Earth Obama ... not news :P

In the Fox News era, the right has no room to complain about media bias. None. You have an entire cable news channel devoted 24/7 to Republican talking points. So STFU.

um. i'm not saying the media is unbiased, but perhaps the candidacy of Barack Obama WAS more interesting and compelling. he did just win by a huge margin, or was that because of media bias in the first place?

captain_heroic44: gimpmonkey: turds like Chris Matthews already have stated they're tankage nut-hugging for Overlord of Changing the Earth Obama ... not news :P

In the Fox News era, the right has no room to complain about media bias. None. You have an entire cable news channel devoted 24/7 to Republican talking points. So STFU.

and absolutely unbalanced demagogue talk radio has a really really big audience. "The Rush Limbaugh Show had a minimum weekly audience of 13.5 million listeners" from Link (new window)