Yes, there really is a media bias. Next question?

some things aren't debate.

sorry.

How can you question if there is a media bias? Of course there is. Did you not see the debate in Texas? That really made it manifest to everyone.

Yes, the media bias exists. And no, these two Clinton appearances do not in my opinion counter the Obama lovefest. At this point, the bias is what it is and will most likely shift to McCain regardless of who snags the Democratic nomination unless a McCain scandal surfaces.

Perhaps, SNL and the Daily Show are actually trying to even things out in light of the "serious media" fawning all over Obama - MSNBC being the biggest offender.

It's kind of revealing when the Canadian media can make a big deal out of something and the only American news outlet to respond is ABC - regardless of the truth value of whatever is being said.  It's the media's job to seek out the truth, and if these outlets were truly out for the truth, they would have all jumped to see what was going on and debunk it if it wasn't true.  Where were CBS, NBC, CNN and the rest?

Maybe objective viewers are just aware that that there is nothing to the Rezko case and don't have any interest in burying Obama with a fake scandal.

And yes, I would agree that at times the treatment of Clinton has been a disgrace, that being said giving her the face time she deserved earlier, all at once and ahead of what has been advertised as her last stand is a pretty compelling case for the idea that at least some in the media want to see a Clinton comeback.

I don't have a beef. I am merely pointing out that at a time when media coverage CAN turn around her campaign she is suddenly getting it. That tends to suggest, that at the very least, the bias is not as strong as some here think it is.

  Ohhhh, that sends a tingle up my leg.

That the theme Camp Clinton has decided to use as its "viral closer" a tried and tattered GOP message:  It's the media's fault.

Here's the problem....

Too many people think "the media" is ENTIRELY comprised of Chris Matthews and other cable teevee bloviators.

In fact, mainstream newspapers, the network evening news, etc -- have been about as balanced as they've always been.  

The only people - the only voters - that get their "news" from the MSNBC/CNN/FOX set are those that are smart enough to make up their mind WITHOUT that input.

Don't get me wrong... away with Matthews, Be Gone David Schuster, take a break and retool, CNN.

But the idea that Clinton is going to lose because the "media" is against her is silly.

But people who don't pay a lot of attention make up the majority of voters.  If it looks like everybody they watch is for Obama, they get the sense that he's the guy to vote for.  That's why its so important to have balance.  Did you see MSNBC's Brian Wilson on the Daily Show on Thursday?  Trying really hard to be neutral.  This is because its now become an issue.  If the Clinton Camp hadn't made it an issue, you'd still see expressions of glee on the faces of Russert and Matthews when tearing her apart.

Recc'd because someone gave this a 1. This is not the kind of comment that should be given a 1.

Obama has continually brought up the issue of campaign finance - the fact that he doesn't take corporate PAC money or federal lobbyist money and he has been ignored.  He has brought it up at every debate and in every speech he has given.  The corporate media disapproves and Hillary, who was on the cover of Fortune Magazine last year declaring that she was open for business and has taken more corporate money that any other candidate Republican or Democrat, has been give a huge pass.  

The idea that Obama has been given a pass is pure demagoguery.  

Anyone that does not think there has been a consistent media bias in favor of Obama and against Clinton has not been watching television. It has amounted to a 24/7 Obama commercial on all major networks and cable outlets. The comedy channels are not the news and they are getting away with this satire in spite of the corporate media bias. I suspect they are taking a lot of heat internally.

That media bias will switch to McCain as soon as (and if) Obama wins the nomination and the diarist will be writing long frustrated diaries about McCain media bias.

I guess you also believe Hillary Clinton somehow timed it so that the writers strike would end just in the nick of time. Otherwise, there would have been no SNL or Tina Fey commentary.

Seriously, there is a bias. Everybody knows it. The media continues it's love affair with Obama. Often times, comedy helps us better stomach these very serious issues.

I'd like to see an objective, methodological study of the media to determine bias. As I've said before, as someone who does a lot of media monitoring as part of my job, I have not noticed significant bias toward or against either candidate in this primary. Yes, I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm professional enough to take that out of consideration when it comes to my actual job performance. Obviously my conclusions are my own and a far cry from scientific, but if someone can cite some kind of objective analysis of the news that determines a pro-Obama bias, I'd love to see it.

I hereby nominate this for Quote of the Week:

He is a one man shit factory and he adores Obama - Obama makes his leg tingle, god help us.

LOL. You deserve a cookie for that.

It's true.  the biases do occur in media.  I think, at least in part, it's due to the viewing audience.  It's the reason the don't show football highlights on the lifetime channel. The sad thing is that to people that actually pay attention, the biases don't matter.  It's the people who decide that they want to see where the potential candidates stand.  

Watching t.v. isn't doing research.