I wonder if people here believe this should this be reason for concern? There are various regulations in place, but do we need to do more to ensure fair coverage, or is the current system fair enough?

I personally land on the side against additional regulation, but this report is a bit toubling:



What do you all think?

How much of that coverage was over the New York Times magazine cover, Reverend Wright, and other attacks on Obama?

Time alone isn't the only indicator. And I note that they completely left out Fox, which could skew everything completely in the opposite direction.

We have a 1st amendment here so there's really not much that could (or should) be done about it. If you don't like it, watch something else.

What is your source for that quote? I looked at the Tyndall site and he hasn't updated in over two weeks. And I can't find any specific reference to a total number of minutes. What time frame does this cover? And was the coverage positive or negative?

Perfectly said and I can't add anything to it.

Equal time is overrated. The heights of positive Obama coverage only compensate for the lows of his negative coverage. McCain wasn't whining when Jeremiah Wright was on the air for a whole month.

Heh. So the media is telling us to support Obama now. It only seems like yesterday that they were telling us to support the Iraq war...

Good times!

This seems to assume that all media coverage is positive.

As they say, all publicity is good publicity...

I'd feed Jeremiah Wright his own penis before he sets foot in front of the Press Club again.

Even all of that was spun for sympathy though...

The only real way to get Political news is to watch Daily Show/Colbert Report.

McCain should push for an amendment to Campaign Finance law to include some craziness about equal time on TV networks. That seems right up his alley.

This study seems to answer the question about the KIND of coverage that Obama has been getting vs McCain.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 2999.story

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.
[...]
But the center's director, RobertLichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts.

"This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," he said.

...and if you buy that, I've got a lovely piece of swampland for sale just south of New Orleans...

And now, for your edification, the Bradley Witherberry Method of Winning a Debate!

1. Whenever someone presents a long-term study done by a respectable organization which goes against your pre-conceived notions, do not do any research to argue against it, because there isn't any. Why waste your time?

2. Try to make your opponent think, however, that you have such information by posting a laughing smiley, which also gives the impression that you are so above everyone else that it would be beneath you to even post a reasonable response.

Although this method will fool no one with any ounce of intelligence, it is hugely effective in convincing yourself!

So go to it, and bathe in the illusion of intellectual superiority!

Bravo! 11 out of 5!

In other words, it will fool most Republicans.

I think I get it. Does this mean that Republicans are dumb and Democrats are smart?

I didn't say Democrats were smart.