Each side is sharply charging the MSM with being biased toward the other side. For sure, any time the most candid and honest presentation of facts is unfavorable to one side, that side is going to jump and scream, "Bias! Bias!"

Can anyone name a single MSM source that both sides agree is "fair and balanced"?

I can't. However, I need to ask some questions about what it means for media to be "fair and balanced."

Numbers of discerning people have pointed out the prevailing misconception that being fair and balanced means presenting the two sides as if they were equal. Never mind how much suppression or enhancement the journalist has to engage in to strike that sense of equality.

These days the classic case-in-point is Obama's Ayers vs. McCain's Keating. Are these two historical relationships equal? Please, let's look at the basic facts of each:

1. OBAMA-AYERS: Obama had no involvement whatsoever, direct or indirect, with Ayers' wrongdoing of many years before when Obama was 8 and living abroad.
McCAIN-KEATING: McCain was directly and contemporaneously involved with Keating's wrongdoing.

2. OBAMA-AYERS: The charges against Ayers for that long-ago conduct were dropped. No conviction, no prison.
McCAIN-KEATING: Keating was convicted of his wrongdoing and went to prison.

3. OBAMA-AYERS: Arguably, even though Ayers' erstwhile conduct was reprehensible, his motivations could be held valid (some would even say noble).
McCAIN-KEATING: Keating was indefensible in either conduct or motivation. Ignoble through and through.

4. OBAMA-AYERS: Obama's involvement with Ayers was as professional colleagues, never as a government official involved with a crook. Implications for an Obama presidency are negligible.
McCAIN-KEATING: McCain's involvement with Keating was as one of the Keating Five of senators suborned by Keating, and per #2 below, his personal relationship with Keating was closest of the five. He was a government official directly involved with the criminal activities of a crook. Implications for a McCain presidency are significant.

5. OBAMA-AYERS: There have never been any charges (nor could there be!) of impropriety of any sort in Obama's association with Ayers.
McCAIN-KEATING: All five senators were investigated for corruption by the Senate Ethics Committee, and while the committee found McCain guilty of only "poor judgment," per #2 below there were limitations and flaws in the whole process that prevent us from knowing the full story.

Given the above foundational facts, can anyone dispute that the McCain-Keating connection is incomparably more culpable, with more implications for a McCain presidency, than the Obama-Ayers connection?

And yet where has been the media emphasis? (I suspect the disproportion has something to do with the Ayers story being "sexier.") What is the "fair and balanced" position here? And where is the bias?

Similarly compare the two campaigns on the issue of negativity. Are they equal? Should they be presented as equal if in fact they're not? I won't go further on that here, but check these:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 5392.story ("An independent review by university ad-watchers has found that 'nearly 100 percent of the McCain campaign's advertisements were negative' during the past week, compared with 34 percent of Obama's.")
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoints ... ding_n.php
("The McCain campaign has now shifted virtually 100 percent of his national ad spending into negative ads attacking Obama, a detailed breakdown of his ad buys reveals. By contrast, the Obama campaign is devoting less than half of its overall ad spending to ads attacking McCain. More than half of its spending is going to a spot that doesn't once mention his foe.")

A broad array of other reliable journalists in panels on C-Span, PBS, CNN, etc. (including right-leaning!) have had to conclude that the sides are no way equal as to negative campaigning. You are welcome to look up any other sources you please and report back. (But spare us all your grossly partisan sources!)

These two Wikipedia pages are relevant to the above Ayers-Keating comparison. Both also contain a vast array of references and links.
#1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers
#2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

What crap. Obama knew who Ayers was and still used the guy to get ahead. He launched his campaign from the guy's house. Ayers never showed any remorse for his crimes. He'll burn in hell unless he changes. Obama showed very poor judgement in the association with Ayers. Obama's lack of judgement regarding his associates (Ayers, Reverence Wright, Farrakhan, etc.) shows that he is not qualified to be president...

You condemn people's souls now? That wasn't a DDiv you got at Harvard, was it?

What was it you say to those you oppose? Maybe you could say this to a terrorist.



Is that what you would say to Ayers? You even said it to a fellow poster. (I guess liberals with fingers aren't the only distasteful people, eh?)

Did you see that terrorist lover might be your next president? But that terrorist-lover might not be your vice-president.

Ayers hates America. Obama was very comfortable with him as a close friend and neighbor.

Now let’s talk about Obama and his 20 year close relationship with the reverend Jeremiah Wright who also hates America. See a pattern of affiliations and comfort levels.

Now let’s also talk about Tony Rezko and the Obama home purchase.

Now let’s talk about Obama’s association with ACORN an agency that bullied the banks into giving out subprime mortgages and is being investigated for voter registration fraud.

Now let’s talk about the fact that Obama will not release his college records. What is he hiding?

Now let’s talks about the discrepancy with Obama’s birth certificate and his time in Indonesia under a different name and national allegiance. Again, what is he hiding. Funny how his stepfathers name is never mentioned in his family association ad on TV. This guy adopted Barry and sent him to school where he was registered as a Muslim.

Now let’s talk about Obama’s plan to redistribute the wealth of our country from the rich to what he calls the middle class.

Now let’s talk about how Obama has put a price on the cost of freedom in relationship to cost of our war on terrorists.

Let's compare all this with McCain's history. All you have on McCain is that his WIFE owns more than one house. How petty compared to the shady Obama land deal.

In don't say that to people I oppose, just those that:
- post "up yours, lorcan" two weeks after I join the site (May)
- call me a prick
- call me an idiot

If MichaelEdward can't handle it, he shouldn't be dishing it out.
If you are looking for a tea party, this is the wrong place....

I've asked this elsewhere ...
What is is that you believe I "can't handle"?

Thanks to the Telegraph's new format, I can't even tell who I'm replying to here.

However, whoever-you-are that rehearsed those same old lines against Obama's assoctiaons:

If you demand to challenge the association with Ayers, then you MUST FIRST account for the fact that both University of Illinois-Chicago and Annenberg Foundation saw fit to hire Ayers in the very professional capacities that were the basis of Obama's association with Ayers.

As to ACORN, there are so many falsehoods being perpetrated by the anti-Obama forces that it's difficult to handle them all in a single response. Nevertheless:

** Do you realize that registration and vote are NOT the same?
** Many voters feel the need to register as many times as they can just to make sure their registation goes through one way or another.
** Repeat registration is NOT ILLEGAL!!
** The serious -- SERIOUS!!! -- problems of recent elections have been VOTER SUPPRESSION, not excessive registration!!
** No matter how many times a voter registers, that voter still gets only one vote. SO WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM??
** Voter disenfranchisement is the real problem!! By the millions!! Statistical reports affirm that "voter fraud" (which, remember, has nothing to do with voter registration!) is in the dozens, while voter disenfranchisement is in the MILLIONS!!

Apart from all that, ACORN is a perfectly legimate organization with a valid objective, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama has instigated or futhered any unethical activity by means of this legitimate organization.

Since the format will not allow me to see what other responses have been posted, I'll have to submit this, and then go back and see what else there was I need to respond to. Sorry.

Note the posts on Ohio, Diebold, and uncounted ballots to see evidence of suppression.

It means that both sides are presented as if they were equal.

an example:
If a thousand people said that the sky was blue and one gent swore it was magenta last time he looked, they would interview one person from the blue category and the one nut.

Practically it means that when discussing any issue, they have one guest who is centrist democrat and one who is a rabid neo-con, no matter what the subject is.

Fair? to whom?
Balanced? not on any scale you can imagine!

It's a phrase developed by FoxSnooze to bamboozle. Oh, the good ole' days, remember when they led the call to war with beautiful waving flag backgrounds and shining smiles as bush sent our citizens off to die in a county that was no threat to us... at... all....

Fox has said that it ("Fair and Balanced") is not a statement of policy, but a trademark.

Ms. Calder puts her opinion much like the topic she talks about, in her favor. I saw no mention of the great Reverand Wright and his association with Obama but of course he never said any of those nasty racist things in the 20 years Obama was in his church right?

Now I will ask this Ms. Fair and balanced. Why is there scant covergage of Bidens remarks that are far more newsworthy than the most of the news we do see? Such as his statement that FDR went on TV and talked about the stock market crash in 1929? Or his most recent comment about how the new president will be tested in the first six months of office and that nation will have to stand behind him because it will be seen as the wrong response?

To say Ayers was anything but a terrorist in itself is treason in my book. I bet you think Jane Fonda is a hero too don't you?
It has been said many times and holds true "you can be judged by the friends you keep". Ayers might not be a "close" friend but let me ask what would you be saying if McCain had a relationship with him? What would you be saying if McCain belonged to a church in the south that preached "white power"? You and the rest of your frauds who refuse to look at real facts will never admit wrongs in your own party.
I do not defend the Republicans but I also will not defend the Democrats who are just as underhanded, corrupt and out of touch.
By the way how come no mention of Obama's connection to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?
How convienient you only bring up a few topics but none of the ones you know you cannot defend. This guy is a fraud, a socialist and help us all if he gets elected and race is not the issue. He is!! By the way when are going to hear that he is "white"? We keep hearing he is "black" but in reality he is only half black so now how about saying he ie white?
I know that will not happen will it??

Have you noticed everyone does that in an argumentative (in the good sense) environment. It's a debating tactic. You do it; I do it; We all do it, to quote (I just realized) Mel Brooks. God knows FOX does it!

My hobby is randomly turning it on and counting the seconds until they pander to the Right. (O'Reilly has a show on Ayers coming up, just to keep him current.)

Obama talks about Obama, and McCain talks about- Obama. Huh.

Who would you like to see in Obama's cabinet? I think the world has agreed on Colin Powell in some role.

Be careful what you bring up.......

McCain was - really was - best buddies with Keating. So much so that he even tried to step in and help him even after he was found out.

McCain was on the board of a very, very far-right conservative organization that had supplied arms and funds to paramilitary organizations in Latin America

.... it might bite you back.

Let's not forget the good Reverend Agee...

Keith Olberman, Oct. 8, 2008

"Why do William Ayers and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright matter? The answer, we are told, has to do with Barack Obama’s judgment and character, judgment in choosing to associate with them, judgment in choosing to serve on a board with Ayers, character in choosing not to walk out on Wright’s rhetoric.
Marilyn Shannon, who defended the woman who shot the doctor, and whom the sentencing judge described as a terrorist, was a McCain delegate at the GOP convention last month
In our fourth story: What we learn applying this litmus test to John McCain.

We told you last night about the U.S. Council for World Freedom on whose board John McCain sat for years. But while Ayers was a rehabilitated terrorist when Obama served on a board with him, what about McCain’s fellow board members in the ’80s?

What about fellow board member, Anthony Bouscaren-a veteran of the Pioneer Fund, a eugenics group researching white superiority? Or fellow board member, Jay Parker, a registered foreign agent for the apartheid government of South Africa in the late ’70s?

And if board co-membership is so toxic, what about McCain’s list of endorsements today, including Leonore Annenberg, widow of philanthropist Walter Annenberg, who created the project on which both Ayers and Obama served?

And what of Obama attending sermons by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, never mind the fact that the teams of opposition researchers have yet to produce any evidence that Obama witnessed any of Wright’s critics of America? If that tells us anything, what does August 30th, 1993 tell us? On that day, McCain attended a fund-raiser for the Oregon Citizens’ Alliance. He can’t claim he wasn’t warned going in 30 protestors picketed him for endorsing the anti-gay group.

Prior to McCain’s appearance there, a Republican senator, a colleague of his, Mark Hatfield, warned Senator McCain not to do it. McCain’s own staffers called it “The invitation from hell,” the Oregonian newspaper reported. An Arizona newspaper column previewed the speech with this headline, quote, “Hate Group Finds Friend in McCain.”

And yet, McCain went, sat silently, offered no rebuke during or after the remarks of this woman, Marilyn Shannon, who praised a local woman who had just shot a doctor less than two weeks earlier. A doctor who was a former Navy flight surgeon, a sonogram pioneer, was shot in both arms because he performed legal abortions.

Unlike Ayers, who did not endorse terrorist activities during his meetings with Obama, this woman, Shannon, said of the shooter, as McCain sat there, quote, “She’s a fine lady.” A judge later sentenced this “fine lady” for a campaign of, yes, bombing women’s clinics said, quote, “Though, I am loathed to call anyone a terrorist, you are a terrorist.”

And Marilyn Shannon, who defended that terrorist, who later said her praise did not mean she approves of others doing what that terrorist did, as McCain renounced her even, she was a Bush delegate in 2004, seen here with a purple heart bandage, mocking the American combat veteran, John Kerry. This year, last month, she was a delegate for John McCain.

Judgment and character."

-------------------------------------------------

that kinda wraps up the 'reputation by association' stuff