How Can You Cover An Election When One Candidate Is Clearly Better Than The Other?

[Yavin4]

Obama's foreign tour has been so successful that it has engendered a media backlash. The media is scrambling to keep their coverage "fair", even though Obama is clearly superior to McCain in every way.

This tour has effectively destroyed McCain's strong suit which was that McCain was better on foreign policy and defense issues. Say goodbye to that convential piece of wisdom.

Here's what this tour has given us. If we elect Obama, we can pull out of Iraq within 2 or 3 years with the blessing of the Iraqi government. We can re-double our efforts to find Osama Bin Laden, and out strongest allies will love us and support our efforts. On the other hand, if we elect McCain, we're in Iraq for another 100 years, and we'll unilaterlly attack Iran. Game. Set. Match to Obama.

What's left for McCain to run on? The economy?

So, now we have this spectacle of a media that's doing everything they can to keep this race fair, even though one candidate is superior.

I call this the Jack Johnson Syndrome. At the beginning of the 20th century, Jack Johnson was an African American heavyweight fighter who destroyed his opponents. Yet, because he was African American, many judges probably scored his fights for his White opponent, even though Johnson was the superior fighter.

In a lopsided contest, the only way to keep it "balanced" is to cheat. Obama is getting favorable coverage because he is clearly better than McCain.

[BOSSHOG]

1. Excellent Point

Caveat: I'm an old fart white guy.

I chuckle at the notion that the media is "genuflecting" at the Obama campaign. Heard it nationally and locally so the right wing lunatics have their talking points together.

Actually, I'd love for the "media" to cover mccain in a fair and balanced manner. That would surely do in his campaign.

[ColbertWatcher]

6. Saying that "the media is 'genuflecting' at the Obama campaign"...

...is cover for when they treat him like shit in the fall.

The GOP-controlled media will say that they're only making up for how poorly McCain was treated.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. It's like Evolution vs. Creationism.

Just because there are two sides to the "debate" it doesn't mean both sides are equally valid.

How do you cover it? Like Countdown covers it. The least biased news show on TV.

[ColbertWatcher]

8. Perfect analogy. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. CNN manage it. But like a photographic negative. A kind of Shroud of Atlanta, rather

than Turin.

[napoleon_in_rags]

4. What they need to do is cut out the narco journalism.

That's my new name for all the "advocacy journalists" who sit around telling us what to think, because of their narcotic numbing effect on the mind. Fair journalism never meant balanced opinions, it meant they should stay out of the opinion business entirely, and focus on the relevant facts. If they did that, they wouldn't have to worry about people choosing Obama over McCain, they would know that they presented the facts on both in a balanced way.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. "It's 31-0, with 7:00 left in the first quarter -- stay tuned for an exciting game!" nt

[Cha]

7. They did it with Gore and

Kerry.

[Yavin4]

9. The Problem with Gore and Kerry was That They Were Too Deferential

When you are better than your opponent, you have to carry yourself as such. Don't be afraid to show it.

[Cha]

10. Ah, that's why the mainstreamediawhores

are saying Obama's arrogant! His confidence that he is a better candidate.