Are you ashamed of the biased presidential coverage?

Guys, just because it's an obvious choice to you doesn't mean that it isn't worthy of being pointed out.

 

I think you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of reporting bias in Newsweek's stories.. just off the top of my head in the last few months they had a piece about the things Bush has done right, by Zakaria. Then there was a piece on Cindy McCain that was even-handed and I would say complimentary. In fact, I liked her a lot better after I read it.

 

I'll disagree with your assertion than CW is the only offender, and note that the righty press is just that, Newsweek isn't supposed to be Mother Jones.

 

While I enjoy the style and quality of writing in Newsweek, the magazine is an obvious choice for not displaying fairness and balance during the election. (Eight of its 11 columnists are on the far left.)

What about the Palin cover a few weeks ago that said, "She's one of the folks (and that's the problem)" It's an impartial headline, as was the story. She's billed as unfit to be VP, one step from president, in large part because she lacks experience. The magazine, and other outlets, jumped all over her mistakes but largely ignored Biden's.

(That said, I'm not a big fan of Palin. I could do without the winking.)

I recall all the Obama covers being touched up, even one with him appearing to be an angel. And the writing in the news stories, again, praised him, despite his lack of experience.

Same facts, different arguments in news stories.

 

Times' editor at large recently made some interesting comments about the media's election coverage:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/10/28/editor-time-fawning-obama-coverage-media-will-regret

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810310012?f=h_top

 

So the argument is that the Republicans got bias coverage in the past, so it's all evened out by the Democrats getting it now?

I'm not buying that.

 

This question should be asked to the beat writers who lost their seats on Obama's plane because their papers endorsed McCain -- and especially to the writers who were allowed to stay because they, you know, get "that tingly feeling running up their legs" whenever The One speaks.

 

From another thread, but let's ask the Dallas Morning News, who were recently excluded from Obama's plane.

 

Prove that they lost their seats because their papers endorsed McCain and you can come sit at the big kids' table.

I said it on another thread and I'll say it here: That the NY Post was still on the plane after running an utterly made-up piece of news about Michelle Obama, subjecting it to, apparently, no fact-checking whatsoever, is an utter marvel.

And as I said about the other two, the WT is a 100,000-circulation paper, and the Dallas Morning News is not a national paper.

 

No. The premise is that all coverage has, at one time or another, seemed biased to the folks on the receiving end of what they perceive as unfair criticism. Ask the Clintons about how well protected they were by liberal media bias from 1992 - 2000.

Or maybe you could just ask it of the press folks blacklisted from the McCain plane.

 

Of course, the Clintons would have the proper perspective on that.