Media is harder on Obama than McCain

ClarusVisum, Maybe it is just his inexperience showing and he is creating more negative news than McCain! I can tell you this, I believe his free ride is over! He has done this to himself (or his campaign has) by alienating many press members and you know what they say about the pen and the sword don't you?

Hold on let me get this straight you used as your relevant links your own blog, if that is not bias then what is. Let me guess you conducted the study yourself.

Yeah it was to be expected-I know there are many young whites who love and adore Obama as their potential leader-but to many-having a black man as an American president is just as bad as having a woman for the same office-so either way for the Democrats, it wouldnt have worked so well this election year even if Clinton won! But Americans Know real change will come to them through Obama and this is why the hard liners want use every thing they have to fail a great leader!!

No offense, but if I have any ability to perceive the world I live in, there is no way this is true. The media bias is exteme and quite real. The media have been so busy panting after Obama and it is not kept secret. Sorry, but this study must be garbage. djbtol

This is a classic example of why studies are flawed. What isn't tracked, by what I can see, in this study is how much air-time both got. A man who goes on a world tour is going to get more airtime and therefore more of a chance for negative comments. Further, if said candidate makes such a tour and chooses to NOT visit wounded troops because the media couldn't come, he is going to get more of a "negative" rating. Studies are always always biased when it comes to anything political, there is no such thing as an unbiased political poll or study.

I've been a bit under the weather all day today and just got online a few moments ago and I'd just heard this report on Verdict. I did a search and was just about to start a discussion on this very subject when I saw yours. Here's an other link that may be more "acceptable" to some readers: http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0708/Study_Networks_tougher_on_Obama.html The study is by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) 2008 Election News Watch Project, which is bi-partisan. The ironic thing is that not too long ago - during the 2006 campaign if I remember correctly - Bill O'Reilly and his buds at Fox News were lauding this group as very impartial and absolutely accurate since at that time they found the networks had favored Democratic candidates over Republicans. Annie

The media aren't the only ones who are hard on Obama. McCain doesn't seem to have much to say about how he intends to address problems like global warming (except simply telling the people to use less energy while we drill for more oil), or what's up with all the flip-flops, or why he has been shirking his responsibilities as a senator throughout his campaign for presidency, missing every congressional vote. But he certainly has a lot to say about what's wrong with Obama, doesn't he? If nothing else, perhaps the middle class majority will be better conditioned to think twice about a Republican president after a 4-year encore with McBush. But God forbid we have to learn this the hard way. If McCain gets elected, we're screwed. Our economy is already reeling; McSame might just be the one to deliver the follow-up blow that lays it out and starts another Great Depression. And while he's at it, say hello to ever prolonged global warming, and watch over 5 million cubic miles of Antarctic ice join the ocean. Say hello to rising sea waters, bigger hurricanes, mass extinction, and new diseases. Yah, we have everything to look forward to, don't we? Republicans don't get it. As long as they have their air conditioning and chunky tax-breaks, they could care less how many more have to die. Obama may be in the top 1% financially as well, but at least he remains conscious of what others are going through.