Yes, there are one or two, but not enough to force this scurrilous, rampant and serious bias into the light.

Of the one or two: Look at the main headlines right now on mediamatters.org: “Tipping the scales: Cable news channels dedicate more coverage to RNC's scheduled programming during peak hours than to DNC's” or “Media uncritically repeat McCain claim that Obama ‘will raise’ taxes.” To tell truth, similar stories are all over their front page right now. I recommend a visit if it is not a regular watering hole.

No. We have not been hallucinating, or participating in inbred Internet paranoid delusion when we feel we see extremely tilted reporting coming from the MSM. I am very glad that someone is actually paying attention after all. But why not major front-page headlines here?

No matter how much we “elites” of blogworld deride the MSM, it does not alter the fact that the MSM is very, very powerful in shaping impressions and beliefs among the vast populace. The fact that they have chosen a pony (okay — old stallion) in this race and are [@#&%!!] carrying him around the track is NEWS, and a very dangerous thing, considering where the country is headed if they succeed carrying him straight into the oval office.

Another example: The study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University in Virginia, which has studied network news since the 1980s was cited in a report by the LA Times in July that Obama was getting more news coverage — and that 72% of it was negative. The same study found that McCain was getting 57% negative coverage.

But that’s the quaint thing about numbers; if Obama gets 70% of the overall coverage to McCain’s 30%, that 57% negative for McCain is a heck of a lot less negative things being said about him. It was a veritable blizzard of negativity about Obama compared to the light dusting for McCain.

Strangely enough, the only place I tumbled across that news item (I don’t subscribe to the LAT) was a quick mention on cable, of all things. Yep. It was Olbermann.

Why not here (or t-dig or h-po… not trying to pick solely on you Josh)?

The fact we only have 60 days left before this election, and that the MSM are laying the peddle to McCain’s metal is something that should make this electronic medium crackle so loud that people who never venture through the flat panel mirrors should hear it.

Oh, sure: I'm writing here now—but I don't even know if anyone will stumble across this barely cathartic rant. This is my Howard Beal impression: "I'm mad as hell and... is anybody out there?"

Anyone else? Josh? Arianna? T-dig?

Yes, there are one or two, but not enough to force this scurrilous, rampant and serious bias into the light.

Of the one or two: Look at the main headlines right now on mediamatters.org: “Tipping the scales: Cable news channels dedicate more coverage to RNC's scheduled programming during peak hours than to DNC's” or “Media uncritically repeat McCain claim that Obama ‘will raise’ taxes.” To tell truth, similar stories are all over their front page right now. I recommend a visit if it is not a regular watering hole.

No. We have not been hallucinating, or participating in inbred Internet paranoid delusion when we feel we see extremely tilted reporting coming from the MSM. I am very glad that someone is actually paying attention after all. But why not major front-page headlines here?

No matter how much we “elites” of blogworld deride the MSM, it does not alter the fact that the MSM is very, very powerful in shaping impressions and beliefs among the vast populace. The fact that they have chosen a pony (okay — old stallion) in this race and are [@#&%!!] carrying him around the track is NEWS, and a very dangerous thing, considering where the country is headed if they succeed carrying him straight into the oval office.

Another example: The study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University in Virginia, which has studied network news since the 1980s was cited in a report by the LA Times in July that Obama was getting more news coverage — and that 72% of it was negative. The same study found that McCain was getting 57% negative coverage.

But that’s the quaint thing about numbers; if Obama gets 70% of the overall coverage to McCain’s 30%, that 57% negative for McCain is a heck of a lot less negative things being said about him. It was a veritable blizzard of negativity about Obama compared to the light dusting for McCain.

Strangely enough, the only place I tumbled across that news item (I don’t subscribe to the LAT) was a quick mention on cable, of all things. Yep. It was Olbermann.

Why not here (or t-dig or h-po… not trying to pick solely on you Josh)?

The fact we only have 60 days left before this election, and that the MSM are laying the peddle to McCain’s metal is something that should make this electronic medium crackle so loud that people who never venture through the flat panel mirrors should hear it.

Oh, sure: I'm writing here now—but I don't even know if anyone will stumble across this barely cathartic rant. This is my Howard Beal impression: "I'm mad as hell and... is anybody out there?"

Anyone else? Josh? Arianna? T-dig?