This poll is in response to recent concerns of media bias in the coverage of the U.S. Presidential candidates.

Your votes and thoughts are appreciated.

Question:
Which candidate will be helped more by the media's coverage of Obama's trip and the NYT rejection of McCain's Op-Ed article?

Choices:
Obama
McCain
Neither

 

I really don't see the two as related except for "News from the Candidates." I don't think McCain will gain much from the NYT's rejection of his piece, especially when his and Obama's are read, and when what the Times actually said in rejecting it are more widely known. However, Obama is getting face time with foreign leaders, which is always news, even for "just" a Senator. For a probable candidate for the Presidency, that is even better. Obama gets his face on the cover of more magazines, more lead stories in the news, and some will see this as getting more foreign experience. (Don't count on foreign experience meaning too much in an election. Since Nixon resigned, the two Presidents with the most foreign experience when taking office have been Ford and Bush the First. Every other President since Nixon resigned had experience only as a governor, yet three of them won a second term. Governors really don't get much foreign policy experience, do they?) Obama benefits much more from his trip than McCain does from the rejection.

Be realistic. Media coverage of Princess Diana as compared to that of Camilla is uneven because of media bias? Some people are just much more interesting than others and merit more attention. McCain is a splendid fellow, and experienced politician; he's also old and dull as dish/ditchwater.IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:
he's also old and dull as dish/ditchwater.IMHO.

A shared opinion! The youngster isn't THAT old, frank