Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
I disagree. Other than the Reverend Wright stuff, I don't think most Obama stuff got much actually critical coverage even in the primary by the traditional media, to the point that the Clinton folks were pretty angry about it. I also think Biden got off really lightly considering how many ridiculous things he said during the campaign. If you know about them, it might be a reflection of your willingness to watch Fox or your reading on the internet.
It may be possible to justify extra scrutiny of Palin from her nomination onward for the reason you suggest. But it doesn't really explain why there was so little coverage of any of her actual governance. I think people know troopergate, Wasilla rape kits, and maybe interest in removing books from the Wasilla. They also know the fact checking on the Bridge to Nowhere story. Can anyone report any other action by Palin in her elective history? Does that make sense if it's an unbiased pressed?
We need to know about her husband's flirtation with the Alaska Party and hear critics from the lower 48 of her Predator Control programs, but nothing about successful programs that contributed to her initially high approval ratings in Alaska?
Is it really reasonable to just assume that there weren't any?
|
Look, I'm as conservative as anyone, but other than a show or two (Today show/Matt Lauer springs to mind), I didn't see any overwhelming bias either way. I thought the networks were pretty fair on everything.
A part of it could also have been the cooperation given by the campaigns. It seemed that Obama's camp was a bit more cooperative than McCain's camp. Now, a lot of those times Obama, Biden, etc. were simply offering platitudes and sound bites, but it was something. I thought McCain's camp should have done a lot more to try to control the message going out to the public, and to shape the media coverage. Maybe that's the ex-journalist/media relations person in me...
Hybrid Mode
