Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just one man who has turned in his butter churn in search of some answers. The purpose of this blog is so that I can have one repository for all thoughts and articles that interest me. If you're here, hopefully you'll find it useful too.
(NOTE: some WSJ links open to partial articles, if you Google the title it will link to the full article)
2 comments:
I'm not sure what your point is. The article, by the Washington Post ombudsman, says that Obama has had more front page articles written about him in the Post in the last month than McCain has. But he has also made more news. He went to Iraq; Israel, Germany, etc., while McCain stayed home. Do you think a newspaper is compelled to write an equal number of stories about candidates when one is doing something newsworthy and the other one isn't? Also, this is just one media outlet. What about the Washington Times, which is a conservative newspaper? Has it analyzed how many articles it has written on Obama and McCain in the last month? My own opinion (which I can't prove, it's just what I think) is that McCain has gotten more favorable press coverage than Obama in the last month.
First off, I'm not a McCain fan. So the fewer stories on him that's fine by me. There is no doubt that Obama had been "busier" with trips, but does that warrant 3:1 coverage on the front page of a newspaper? Seems a bit excessive.
As for the Times being more conservative, I absolutely agree. There are definitely media outlets that lean right, just as their are those that lean left. But the number leaning left far outweighs the right. Look at the top 100 newspapers in this country (http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html). I'm familiar with the first 6, and in that group only the WSJ is considered "conservative". The rest are all more leaning (or completely fallen) to the left. The Washington Times didn't even make the top 100.
Post a Comment