I found this peculiar article on CNN homepage today. I was struck by how far CNN has to go to appear unbiased, even when the facts say otherwise. Just look at the conflict between the title "Analysis: Obama, McCain both have lobbyist ties" and the information presented in paragraph 4:

During this campaign, lobbyists and trade groups donated $181,000 to McCain, while Obama received $6,000, according to the New York Times.

Don't you think that the fact one candidate accepted 30 times more money from lobbyists than the other candidate would warrant a special mention? I mean, when you obscure the truth in your attempt to be unbiased there is a problem. The article goes on to mention McCain attending an event hosted by the "well-respected International Republican Institute in Washington" and Obama receiving money from a group of Iranian Americans. Seems like a subtle way of appearing to be balanced news coverage while actually playing on people's xenophobia.

I have many other gripes with the article:
1) the author's inference that Obama (who has a law degree) should be ashamed of taking money from lawyers since they might have ties to lobbyists
2) the Iranian-American group pledged to donate $250,000 to Obama, but failed to meet the mark, the reader has no idea if Obama received a sizable amount of money from this group or a pittance
3) the author brings "bundlers" into the picture, implying that taking money from them is as seedy as taking money from lobbyists, then points out Obama raised over 50 million from these "bundlers"

Come to think of it, the whole article seems like a republican-ish response to the Times article yesterday which discussed McCain's involvement with IRI little more extensively. Hmmm

So remember: Never judge a MSM article by its title. An unbiased-sounding headline might be covering up a story.

(p.s. this is my first post so I apologize if I mess up any of the links/formatting :)