Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Personally, I think this merits discussion. It raises some valid points about press bias, and the motivation in presuming it.

I didn't comment before, as it was shut down rather quickly and I don't feel educated enough on ethical considerations in the press. However, here is my uneducated response. McCain has been negative for a great portion of his campaign and over the last two months went completely Rovian (Even hiring the former slime he faced in 2000). Normally, this would result in negative press coverage but we are in different times. The public has overwhelmingly rejected the Rovian politics of old and the press has responded. Furthering that, the McCain campaign is nowhere near as masterful at it as the Bush team was. Palin comes across as shrill, sarcastic and uneducated while McCain is compared to Grandpa Simpson. I don't think this is just my internal bias showing here either, as even in 2000 and 2004 I grudgingly admitted they were well ran campaigns (Bush, Bush).

However, lets look at the facts. McCain has had 0 statement consistency. The one true 'Presidential' decision a Presidential nominee has is picking his veep; he has been eviscerated by the GOP intellectuals over this and mocked by others. I believe the media has been a representation of 1) How badly McCains campaign has been ran and 2) The changing zeitgeist our country is undergoing (Bush hate, war, recession, incumbents).

/Obama is a hell of a campaigner too

You can only report something under a few restrictions: a) it has to be true, or murky enough that there's some doubt one way or another; b) it has to exist.

Point A: The reason why all the dingbat, "is he a citizen?", cherry-picking association stories don't get airtime on the "liberal media" (which I guess includes FOX News, because they don't factually cover them either... Bill O'Reilly and his ilk are NOT reporting, sorry to spoil your day) is because they are demonstrably NOT TRUE. To claim that they are, when they can swiftly, easily, and mockingly be debunked, is like scratching your itchy unit with a sausage grinder: sure, it works up to a point, but then Bad Things happen, and while it might seem like a good idea at the start, the result will have consequences you won't like.

Point B: There's very little positive about the McCain campaign, so it would follow that there would be very few positive stories about it. Obama has been spreading positive messages for the most part in his events (less so in the ads, but that's political ads for you), so thus follows positive stories. Making up stories is frowned upon, so if you'd like to see more positive stories about a candidate, encourage them to do more positive things (and be less of a douche... I know, hard sell, but it's worth a try).

If people think there is evidence of press bias on ideological grounds they should look at past elections not just this one. This would eliminate the candidates and campaigns as a variable.

I think the winner should be Pres and the loser vice pres. meh

That's how it used to be... and I would assume it helped moderate some of the bullcrap that has become such a integral part of the process. Of course, that was when there were more than two parties with the potential to be elected, so it had a different dynamic.