Artful Dodger: We're not going to find agreement on this.If a campaign focuses on negativity you can't expect it to be reported otherwise,if it was it would be disingenuous reporting.I watch Fox all the time,O'Rielly and his ambush journalism is legendary,not to mention Hannity's mantra-like preaching of talking points.I will say this,you'd be very hard pressed to not get a snicker from any well respected journalist if you stated that either Fox or MSNBC are not extremely slanted either right or left.I also would avoid using rattings as a barometer of quaity,if it was how do you explain American Idol

Some of the best programming is on PBS,and their viewership numbers aren't going to win any awards

Jim Dandy: I'm afraid that you don't understand the concept of positive vs. negative reporting. it has nothing to do with negative campaigning, for example, yesterday Obama said, and I am paraphrasing, that he wants to bankrupt the coal industry, a positive spin would be focus on the environmental impact of such a decision, a negative spin would be to report the effects on jobs ,oil and electrical prices, the economic and social impacts, another way for the drive by's to go would to simply not report it, which is a major reason as to how the negativity ratings are differed

Jim Dandy: You've completely missed the point of the report I cited. Vikings is right. It had nothing to do with how the campaigns were run. BTW, this isn't the only time an independent study clearly showed that Fox stands above the rest when it comes to fair and balanced reporting.

Tuesday: Perhaps the only reason you think the McCain camp was so negative is because of the slanted coverage in that direction. How is it that Fox news treated both candidates equally? Couldn't MSNBC find enough negative about Obama to focus on? Of course they could. They chose not to. And Fox found 60% positive on McCain to report on. They gave Obama the same courtesy. MSNBC found ONLY 14% negative reporting for Obama vrs 73% negative re: McCain. It's not the job of the media to slant their coverage in favor of a candidate but that's exactly what MSNBC has done. And BTW, the report I cite did not come to the same conclusion that you and JimDandy have come to and they are the ones that did the study. You and Jim are interpreting the findings incorrectly.

Tuesday: I know. It's been revived. I'm defending the honor of Fox news.

Tuesday: let's try this, I'll bet you think still that someone said to kill Obama at one of McCains rallies, did you know that no one said it, only the Scranton newspaper reported it, and absolutely no other news agency either heard it nor was able to find a witness to say that they heard it, but the Scranton newspaper still asserts that it happened.
Now something that you probably have never heard unless you have read it on a blog or heard it on Fox, people have been wearing shirts at Obama rallies that say "Palin is a (the worst word that you can call a woman)" Ill bet you can figure it out but I'll bet that you haven't heard that bit on negative news on MSNBC

Also the report wasn't about more negative coverage, it was about the balance of positive to negative, you would think that McCain never says anything positive, but you would be very wrong, and this biased reporting is not new, it happens every election and threw out politicians teniors also, heck even Dan Rather says that the media is in the tank for Obama

Tuesday: Exactly. You have just supported my point. The coverage is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain.

Tuesday:

Tuesday: I saw it. Funny! I love Tina Faye.

I wish I has some Kool-aide too

Vikings:

Tuesday: because no one said kill him, and it was Obama that ignored the Palin t-shirts. You see you are doing the same thing as the media, ignoring anything negative about Obama as if is wasn't said or true and focusing on the negative things that the media has inbread in your head

Vikings: I understand the concept,I just don't buy either Fox or MSNBC as examples,both networks constantly spin for their respective leanings.Politicians are also very aware of the treatment they'll get on either of those two

Here's a great example of bias, when Obama goes over-seas, all three networks send ankers, when Mc,cain goes overseas, just the normal field reporters

just reported this morning, CBS spent 1.2 million covering Obama and 222,000 on Mc Cain.
The media in total spent almost 10 million on Obama and 4.6 million on Mc Cain
IN THE TANK

Vikings: Here's a great example of bias,Palin's coverage is vast,Biden might as well be in seclusion

They follow the buzz,how else do you explain "Joe The Plumber" being on shows such as Larry King last night? The media has the attention span of a 5 year old having ingested his/her halloween stash in one sitting

Vikings:A much longer dem primary season and the Europe trip might be the reason,not to mention Palin and McCain campaigned together quite often,Obama/Biden didn't..

the sky is blue, explain away that,
Biden isn't covered much because Obama doesn't want him covered much, He is such a bafoon that he is the gop's greatest weapon

Vikings:

This from HUFFPOST:

"Fox News correspondent Major Garrett shot back in defense of Barack Obama against the network's morning show's effort to suggest that he has ignored Fox News throughout the campaign. In an internal email obtained by the Huffington Post, Garrett — who has been Fox News' correspondent following the Obama campaign — took issue with a planned "Fox & Friends" segment about whether Obama will try to control the media, using "KICKED REPORTERS OFF PLANE, IGNORE FNC, BIDEN FL AV INTVIEW" as "examples he's already done."

"May I point out Obama has done 5 interviews with me and one with Chris Wallace, one with Brit Hume and one with Bill O'Reilly," Garrett replied-all to a "Fox & Friends" producer's email. "That's 8 interviews. Would I like more? Yes. Would Chris Wallace? Yes. Would Brit and O'Reilly like more? Of course."

The e-mail, which went to a significant portion of Fox News staff, continued, comparing Obama's eight interviews with Fox News to the five Hillary Clinton gave the network.

"Just a note to add some real numbers and a grain of context," Garrett said. "Apologies if I left out any other big interview of Obama [or] Clinton on our network."

The planned guest, Media Research Center president Brent Bozell, did appear but the segment was retooled to discuss the media coverage of Obama's remarks on the coal industry."

Bush/Cheney seemed to always use the safe haven of Fox news for interviews over the past few years,it's good to see Obama venture into hostile territory even if it's not in his best interests.

Tuesday: I think it will be very interesting watching the dynamic evolve IF Obama wins,and that's a big IF........will MSNBC become apologists for the administration?

Will Fox maintain there usual support for the administration in power?

Personally I feel the biggest culture shock will occur at MSNBC,I don't see them making the adjustment as easily

Tuesday: I'll bet you money that Fox treats Obama with the utmost respect should he win the White House. And for the record, Fox has been very hard on Bush on both foreign and domestic issues. O'Reilly (my hero lol) has hammered the Bush administration for it's failure to live up to its constitutional duties to protect our borders. He's failed on many fronts and Fox, along with other news agencies, have reported those failures. The Surge was a success, but the aftermath of the war was totally unplanned and a comedy of errors. Fox has been a strong critic of how the Bush administration handled things after Iraq fell.

If Fox became a bashing agency for the Democrats (should Obama win) I'd quit watching them. Brit Hume and Chris Wallace are a class act. I'm watching them now. :) There will be shows such as Hannity and Combes where no matter what the Democrats do (or the Republicians for that matter) there will be critics (but you will find them equally represented). O'Reilly doesn't report the news, he is an analysist. He gives his view, and always has an opposing view represented. I've seen O'Reilly get ripped apart by a certain guest (out argued) and that guest is a regular even though he/she holds to an opposite view. It makes for a spirited debate. And Democratic Congresspersons are regulars on many Fox News programs. I think they all like to get into the thick of it and mix it up. I'll bet they all go have beers afterwards and laugh and tell jokes!

Artful Dodger: Fox would be commiting ratings suicide if they didn't move closer to center if Obama wins,they'd risk being cut out of the loop,and not get appearances and interviews from the Pres and his closest aids,much like how Bush and Cheney gave Fox much more access than any other network.It's just wise business,and a sense of the change in the country's viewership tastes.Fox has slipped in the ratings,that's not coincidance.You live by an administration,you die by an administration.

naw,the McCain campaign just decided to go all mavericky

Tuesday: The "posh" hotel was chosen because it's where he and his wife were married.

Artful Dodger: I'm surprised Cindy was cool with that,maybe he still feels guilty

TuesdayYou're joking about the jelly bean story,right?:

Tuesday: I wouldn't have felt a welcome member of the country during those times,I'm surprised more didn't come to Canada,it's not like we don't have room