The LA Times finally released a study I've been waiting for someone
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
It looks at the actual media coverage of Obama--not just the amount
of coverage--and shows that the media's been much harder on Obama than
McCain. It's not even close. I know they cover him a lot more, but I
think the media's so scared to be labeled Obamabots, they almost
always tint their coverage in a negative/sceptical light. Think about
it. Whenever Obama gives a great speech, their focus isn't on the
content of the speech. Never. They may acknowledge that it was great at the beginning of the segment, but the focus is almost always: "but was it
too nuanced/elitist for middle America?" or "but do Americans in
Peoria really want to see Germans cheering for Obama?"
The guilt by association thing has never made sense to me. I have good, close, long-time friends who are blatantly racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, etc. I just accept that as part of their personality. I know where they stand, they know where I stand, sometimes we'll argue about it, sometimes we'll try to rile each other up over it for fun. At no point have they ever rubbed off on me. If one of my more intolerant liberal friends suggested to me that by knowing these people and not kicking them to the curb for their faults, it must mean that deep down I'm racist, homo-phobic, and anti-semitic, I'd find that laughable and just wrong.
Consider how good the timing is for the John Edwards endorsement. Not
just for Obama, which is obvious (stealing Hillary's media day,
appearing to lock it up, etc.), but for Edwards. Had he endorsed
before North Carolina, which many thought he would, he might have been
seen as one small factor in a state Obama was already going to win,
but then Obama would still have lost in West Virginia and the media
would be asking if Edwards' blue collar influence was a myth outside
of his own state. By declaring now, the day after Hillary's fluke
blowout in a state that was almost designed to vote against Obama in
record numbers, and by declaring a week before Kentucky (a state which
has been coupled with West Virginia by the media, but that is almost
guaranteed to vote for him in higher numbers because of its colleges,
larger cities, and slightly friendlier demographics), Edwards has set
himself up to be remembered as Mr. Blue Collar.
This is my response to the Sean Hannities and Rush Limbaughs out there, who howl every time a Wright or a Michele Obama dare show anything but complete and utter fealty toward this great nation:
Imagine a Monopoly game between a white man and a black man. It's being played at the white man's home, so he decides to tweak the rules a bit in his favor. At the start of the game, he gets his own $1500 starting money, then takes his opponent's as well. He also explains that he'll be the only one allowed to buy real estate. They spin around the board a dozen times or so, the white man buying property, the black man building debt to him. After a while, the white man feels bad and starts allowing the black man to collect his $200 as he passes Go, which allows him to pay down a little of his debt. They even work out a deal where the black man can put his own house on Baltic Avenue. The white man doesn't have to pay for landing there, but neither does the black man.