Face it, folks--we're not going to win with this "Obama & The Press" thing.

[Bicoastal]

Why? Because Obama will not, cannot be the underdog in this race, at least in the eyes of the press. Barack is a positive, upbeat, can-do guy. He's an amazing speaker. He's a Democrat, following on the heels of the worst Republican president in living memory. He's black, and no black man has ever won the White House or even come close. He's popular with all sorts of people, including people you wouldn't think would even shake his hand, much less vote for him.

In other words, he's the type of candidate who inspires plenty of press, good AND bad. And for better or worse, no journalist is going to devote the same amount of ink to McCain, who for all his folksiness is essentially the "politics-as-usual" candidate in this race.

So when Obama receives positive press, certain folks will complain about biased coverage.

But when Obama receives negative press, those same folks will say "Aha! I told you it was all a bunch of smoke and mirrors!"

And when Obama receives more press than usual, certain folks will, again, complain about biased coverage.

But when Obama receives less press than usual, the same folks will say "See? America's fallen out of love with this charlatan!"

The good news about all this is that now, more than ever, the race is Obama's to lose. But the bad news is that Obama will continue to receive more press than McCain no matter what happens. And this means Barack's relationship with the press is going to remain a bone of contention with every right wing talking-head from the blogosphere to the radio airwaves, to the stream-lined studios of Fox News.

You can bank on it.

[anonymous171]

1. This election is about Barack Obama. Which seriously sucks sometimes.

[Bicoastal]

3. Well, no one ever said that electing a black man named Barack Hussein Obama was going to be easy...

...at least, I never though it was going to be. I'm surprised and delighted that he's done as well as he's doing.

Just never forget who this same country elected twice less than a decade ago.

[grasswire]

6. The country elected Gore and Kerry.

The stupidity was not in the voters but in those who capitulated to election fraud.

[ruggerson]

4. actually I think this election is about eight years of shrub

Obama is a very talented politician, but the reason he is ahead in the polls is because he is running on total change - a full break from the past. Had he made this run four years ago, it wouldn't be working. The country, being populated, in part, by some not-so-bright people, needed to see what an enormous disaster Bush was, eight years worth, before they were ready for change of this magnitude.

And boy are they ready now.

[Egnever]

7. Absolutely

Couldn't agree with you more. I think as people get to know him he wins them over on his own merits. But I doubt he would have gotten past the first hurdle if not for the political climate. Hopefully every republican up for re-election this year is being challenged cause there is some serious retribution voting going on.

[NattPang]

2. I'm still waiting for the positive press from the television.

It appears that since Obama won Iowa,
it has gotten quite spartan.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Don't Hold Your Breath

Obama will always get the attack dogs:


While McLame will always get the lap dogs:

[KharmaTrain]

8. Look At The Polls...We Already Have...

You can believe the talking heads or their lying eyes. I'd love to do a poll on the credibility of the corporate media...I'd bet they score in single digits as well...be it right or left or even the middle, people are tired of the bobbleheads on the teevee telling us what to think or believe.

Most the people who watch these show are partisans and political junkies...people who have already made up their minds on many things. What you're seeing is the beltway game...the one the villagers in that bubble are playing among themselves...those who stand to gain from an Obama presidency will laud him, those who fear losing their access and bylines (a lot of 'em) are trying to "balance" the coverage.

There's the old saying of a knock being as good as a boost...and the corporate media has helped Democrats in recent years by playing that "balanced" game...it's led to the rise of the netroots and alternative media. AFAIK, I hope they keep it up.

[Median Democrat]

9. The Nation Has A Great Article Discussing The Reasons Behind Big Media's Bias

This article is discussed at length in this thread, and here's a small excerpt:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6355482

"Viable democracy cannot survive, let alone flourish, with such debased journalistic standards. Despite some remarkable recent victories by grassroots activists, our media still fail the most critical tests of a free press. This is an impasse that cannot last for long, and in all likelihood the outcome of the 2008 presidential election will go a long way toward determining which side, the corporate owners or the public, will win the battle for the media. The stakes could not be higher.

The next President will make two important decisions. The first will be whether to accept media reform legislation or veto it. There is little doubt that Congress has shifted dramatically as a result of popular pressure. Corporate lobbyists who used to worry only about battling one another for the largest slice of the pie know the game has changed. The 2008 elections will almost certainly increase support in both houses and from both parties for media reform.

Second, the next President will appoint a new FCC chair who will command a majority of the commission's five members. This is a critical choice. The right majority would embrace the values and ideals of the thousands of media critics, independent media producers and democracy activists who will gather June 6-8 in Minneapolis for the fourth National Conference for Media Reform. Dissident commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, who have battled the FCC's pro-Big Media majority on issues ranging from media ownership to net neutrality and corporate manipulation of the news over the past four years, will both address the conference. If Copps, the senior of the two, is named chair, this savvy Washington veteran is prepared to turn the agency into what it was intended to be by Copps's hero, Franklin Roosevelt: a muscular defender of the public interest with the research capacity and the authority to assure that the airwaves and broadband spectrum, which are owned by the people, actually respond to popular demand for diversity, competition and local control. After years of battling to block rule changes pushed by corporate lobbyists, Copps has called for a New American Media Contract, saying, "I'm sick of playing defense." In these pages on April 7, he urged that we "reinvigorate the license-renewal process" by returning to standards set during Roosevelt's presidency, when "renewals were required every three years, and a station's public-interest record was subject to FCC judgment."