>>>>>>>I wasn't suggesting Glenn Beck is the only biased commentator or that it's worse on one side than the other. Was just bemused that Tracy felt the need to start a thread calling our attention to a column he wrote criticizing Barack Obama. Gosh, what a complete surprise! It's about as newsworthy as starting a thread saying the sun rose in the east this morning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yeah, you're right. Almost as unbiased as the rest of the fawning media are in favor of The One.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/23/beck.obama.media/index.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There's an unbiased source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The reason I posted it was not because of his criticism of Obama, but rather the MEDIA. I'm surprised you didn't get that. Especially given our recent discussions on the media's favoritism for him. The typical journalism of a presidential election has turned into a fan club cheering for Obama. No more are newspapers and television affiliates sending one journalist to each camp. They have sent the entire camp to Obama... The journalism aspect alone must concern you whether or not you feel Obama is the best candidate.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you truly believe the only reason Obama is getting more attention than his competitors is media bias, well, all I can say is you have a right to that view. The hue and cry about the media pushing Obama forward amuses me, just as it amused me when Hillary complained about him holding huge rallies all the time. Jeez Louise. I mean, if I went on a talk show as a guest along with Angelina Jolie, I wouldn't complain that everyone was looking at Angelina. I don't think Obama needs the media's help to draw attention.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. The point is equal coverage of the final two top party candidates. This isn't entertainment (although it might as well be), it's journalism during a presidential election.
>>>
>>>There is no rule anywhere that every news organization has to send a reporter along with one candidate if they send a reporter along with another. Pool reporting is nothing new. The McCain campaign is not going unreported by any means. The fact that Obama is drawing more reporters goes hand in hand with him drawing more attention from the public. I think there was a little more interest this week in Obama in the Middle East and Europe than in McCain doing more town meetings in New Hampshire, or whatever he was doing. If he makes a similar foreign tour he will have plenty of media company.
>>>
>>>One way I know a lot of Republicans know they're dead ducks this time around is they're already whining about how it isn't FAIR. You don't seem to hear many of them say Hey, wait a minute, we've got a better candidate. All they can think to do is attack Obama, his ex-minister, the news media, etc. Republicans are so cute when they whine <g>.
>>
>>This amazes me that you think it is whining. First, I'm not a Republican. Second, the issue is news coverage of a presidential campaign that is nowhere near what it has been since we had newspapers, let alone video.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by the first part -- that the coverage of Obama is unprecedented? Why would that be surprising? For one thing it is a historic campaign, the first time a non-white has been a candidate for U.S.President. There is also the fact he has awakened hope in a lot of people who haven't felt hopeful about presidential candidates in quite a while. (Of course we're all naive idiots, but still <g>).
>
>As far as my enjoyment of Republicans whining, that was not directed at you personally. Goodness knows there are plenty of others doing it.

My God. This really is starting to be reminiscent of Mussolini... Even worse, in the time that Hitler first came to power, people had the same view. He was the great hope. He used all the right buzz words. Neither were specific as to what their actions would be nor their policies. I am not equating Obama with either of the two, just pointing out that voting based on emotion and buzz words without substance and specific policies is a very dangerous game.