Are you ashamed of the biased presidential coverage?

A story from Rolling Stone about Obama: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama

Rolling Stone changed the title of this story from "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" to "Destiny's Child" after the Rev. Wright stuff got out of control. Not sure why the magazine felt it needed to change the headline, unless it wanted to help the candidate it endorsed.

The story mentioned in one sentence, according to Obama, that he "smoked some weed and even did a little blow" during his youth. But the reporter never tracked down any of his childhood friends to talk in-depth about his drug use.

Meanwhile, here's a Rolling Stones story about McCain: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print

The entire story is basically a second-hand account telling you "the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather."

Rolling Stone wrote an article about how Obama has energized his party and mentioned Rev. Wright. Great. But then it tells you why that tie doesn't matter because he says so.

With McCain, the magazine digs substantially deep and hits him hard with some pretty opinionated phrases about him being a "bad" pilot and "spoiled" because other people said so.

I think this is a pretty good example of the lacking fairness and balance in the election coverage, even if it's just two stories from Rolling Stone.

 

So Rolling Stone uses second-hand accounts of Obama's drug use and doesn't go in-depth ... and uses second-hand accounts of McCain being a "bad" pilot.

But one's biased for not going in-depth and one's wrong for ... using other people's quotes?

I don't get it.

 

Obama admitted about the drug use but said nothing else. The magazine did not publish any second-hand accounts on his drug use, not going any deeper on that issue and how serious it might have been.

But the magazine goes deeper on McCain, using second-hand accounts about him being a bad pilot and a fraud and telling you that's the "real" story.

Quite a difference in my mind.

 

I hope that's not the best you can come up with.

 

You asked for an example, and I gave it the quickest one I could think of.

I could care less if you agree with me.

The funny thing is I'm not a Republican, but I am a journalist. And that lack of fairness in those two stories bothers me. I believe there was an obvious agenda to make one person look good and the other look bad.

 

Since you're a journalist, this may help in your writing.

The phrase is "I couldn't care less."

 

How much less could you care?

Dammit FoaF.

 

Thanks for the correction.

Please don't fire me. :

 

Just trying to help. Wouldn't want you to look stupid in print.

 

Appreciate you looking out for me.

I'm not quite as cautious of what I'm writing on a message board at 2 a.m. compared to what I do for my daily beat.

But hey, feel free to keep building yourself up if you need to, brother. I'm sure with your guidance I'll eventually get my dream job of working for you. :

 

Frankly, I looked at both stories, and I don't see why you guys aren't seeing what Glen is. I think it's a pretty solid example of unbalanced reporting.