That's because ..

edit: man, that took some time to make the picture come up.

Do certain members of the media not have the same right as every other citizen to prefer a particular candidate? Admittedly, I'm glad it's the one I support, but I don't really see what all the fuss is about. He's got a better chance of making statements against Obama on FauxNews than Obama does making comments on McCain.

edit: also:

The fuss is that if the situation were reversed there would be protests and threats of boycotts and general whining coming from the usual suspects.

Not to mention threats of violence and wishing death on the owners of the media outlets in question.

I guess that's a pretty good illustration of the public opinion then.

First off, doesn't a newspaper... the "newspaper of record"... either have a responsibility to its readers to either come out and say, "We are no longer a 'straight news' source, we are biased, and will only print news/stories that fit our bias," or to make an attempt at fairness?

And secondly, the only reason Obama couldn't attack McCain on FOX (you had a little typo when you wrote it before), is because he refuses to talk with them... "scheduling conflicts" and such. Of course, Obama's speeches are covered extensively by FOX, but the knee-jerk reaction that they "must be up to something," is pretty standard... even if not true.

Or a good illustration of selective outrage.

This is news? The media has been infatuated with Obama for a good while now. Granted I like the guy, he does not deserve this kind of...devotion.


On another note, it should be mentioned that Obama, and McCain do agree on many issues, and they are not as different as kerry/bush.

Interestingly, The NYT posted an article explaining why they published the op-ed piece from Hamas. Many were angry that the NYT would give a voice to terrorists.

However, The Times felt that there was a danger in a one-sided debate

Also from that piece (in regard to publishing the Hamas article):
"Many readers were outraged, complaining that The Times had provided a platform for a terrorist. One, Jon Pensak of Sherborn, Mass., said that allowing Yousef space in The Times 'isn’t balanced journalism, it is more the dissemination of propaganda in the spirit of advocacy journalism.'

Well, yes. The point of the op-ed page is advocacy. And, Rosenthal [the editor]said, “we do not feel the obligation to provide the kind of balance you find in news coverage, because it is opinion.”

Printing the op-ed by the candidate the paper supports is consistent with this editorial policy, one that is shared by many newspapers.

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

Theres more ways to win a war than to kill everyone in the region. When men women and children are being labelled as insurgents(what the hell is an insurgent anyways?) and terrorists when they pick up arms, and then killed that just increases the hate for americans in Iraq and the recruitment for terrorist soars. There are familes over there that want to be peaceful but have members that are in some regime but when we kill their family members that just makes them want to pick up arms against us as well.

Ending something while you're ahead is not the same as losing.. Theres more countries than the U.S. that could be helping out as well