Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (410605)	8/26/2008 2:38:20 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577060

What, can't you read? you said: The Washington Post has admitted its own coverage has been severely pro-Obama biased: "Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party’s presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain — and therefore there’s more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn’t look good." -------------------------------- The number of articles has nothing to do with positive or negative coverage. If Obama had 3 to 1 number of articles and they were all negative it certainly wouldn't be a "pro-Obama bias". Even liberals like Rendell are now calling the media on the carpet for its bias. Against Hillary, not McCain. There were in fact more favorable mentions about Obama than Hillary, but that has shifted to a bias towards McCain over Obama. You are spending too much time listening to Rush and his 'driveby media' crap. The press has always loved McCain, they are giving him a pass on a continuing basis. How can you talk with such confidence when you are so wrong so often?