The same could be said for Conservatives who complain about the left biased media. Stop complaining about one and praising the other...

The great thing about all the biased Obama coverage is that it has made it impossible for liberals to deny that a liberal media bias exists.

The great thing about all the biased Obama coverage is that it has made it impossible for liberals to deny that a liberal media bias exists.

 

Ever consider that all the attention could be on Obama because McCain is so boring? :lol:

I'd be willing to say even if he done what you said he'd still be criticized.

 

He was criticized for not making a trip like this. Now that he has he's being criticized for making it. It is Senator Obama running for President of the world but Senator McCain, who made the same trip, isn't getting accused of that. It seems to me that some are upset that Senator McCain didn't get the same coverage. That's not Obama's fault.

 

You are correct. During Obama's campaign, the anti-Obamas have criticized him, and continue to do so, no matter what he does. I seem to remember the Rev. Wright scandal. "Why doesn't he denounce the man?" Then when he did, "how does he denounce a man whose church he has attended for 20 years." In this case, if he doesn't make the trip, he is criticized. Then, when he does, he is trying to be president of the world.

 

As for the media, I see nothing in the constitution that prohibits them from being any different then any other business. If they wish to cover one candidate more then another, then they have that right. As a business, they rely on ratings to exist. Of course they are going to spend more time covering a more exciting candidate with a more exciting storyline. I don't watch FoxNews (actually, I only watch CNN, usually), but they may be playing to a slightly different audience and promote a different storyline.

 

Bottomline...they can report what they want. I don't have to listen if I don't want to.

Ever consider that all the attention could be on Obama because McCain is so boring? :lol:

The media has never had any problem of giving McCain plenty of coverage in the past - especially when he was bashing fellow Republicans. If the media bias was not helping put a totally unqualified and far left wing candidate into the White House, then I would say the media's snubs of John McCain are just poetic justice - a case of living and dying by the sword.

Ever consider that all the attention could be on Obama because McCain is so boring? :lol:

 

That shouldn't matter one iota. The media's alleged purpose is to keep the American people informed, not to decide who is worthy of coverage.

That shouldn't matter one iota. The media's alleged purpose is to keep the American people informed, not to decide who is worthy of coverage.

 

If you think the media is set out strictly to keep people informed... I don't know what to tell you.

 

If it bleeds it leads is a good saying that reminds me of the media. The media will only report what they think is going to bring in the viewers.

The media SHOULD provide equal coverage of both candidates.

 

Then again, it is completely understandable (and American) to show what brings in more viewers.

 

The real debate here is whether or not the Obama-obsession has been caused by exaggerated media coverage of him. If so, then that is very unfortunate and unfair result. But no one here says it should be illegal (I don't think). But just because people are not advocating illegality, does not mean that they can't say it is wrong.

I dont think they are truly doing this. As NWO said, this is a rare election situation we have going on currently. A African-American is close to becoming the leader of the free world. I think that deserves a little extra media coverage. The media in the past has shown me how a old, bald, white guy runs a campaign; I want to see a different angle and approach.

 

 

Why? Explain why what was stopped over a hundred years ago has any significance with an election today.

While I think it was wrong for the kid to take it and the newspaper to release it, it makes Obama look really good.

While I think it was wrong for the kid to take it and the newspaper to release it, it makes Obama look really good.

 

 

That was my thought as well.

Why? Explain why what was stopped over a hundred years ago has any significance with an election today.

 

Racisim and persecution of minoritys stopped 100 years ago?? Man my math must be really bad.

While I think it was wrong for the kid to take it and the newspaper to release it, it makes Obama look really good.

 

I'm not sure that it makes him look good, exactly, though certainly not bad. It makes him look like a normal Christian man that cares about his family.

I'm not sure that it makes him look good, exactly, though certainly not bad. It makes him look like a normal Christian man that cares about his family.

 

 

Which to many many Americans makes him look good.

Which to many many Americans makes him look good.

 

Which Americans? Those that assume he isn't Christian?

Which Americans? Those that assume he isn't Christian?

Exactly. The Christian middle who may swing their vote to him.