Step away from the keyboard and put down that doobie.

Dude. PAY ATTENTION. You keep on ascribing me comments I haven't made. You're talking to anjin-san. Not me.

Geebus.

Interesting that you wish to be able to define your own political affiliations, yet are so quick to label others, or refer to their party affiliation incorrectly (leftist, Democrat Party).

In your case, I'm not incorrect. You've made your real position clear many times over, Hal, and I'm hardly the only one to make that observation.

Of course you might prove me wrong. Let's see. I know... please provide us a historical example of you being critical of Obama.

I suppose Anderson forgets that I'm not overly happy with McCain, either... and that I'm an independent.

And yet there is no doubt in anybody's mind who you will vote for in November.

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.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

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.

And note from that link the following, to anticipate the argument along the lines that Michael is arguing against

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.

I assume YAJ has something other than his assertion to back up his claim that the MSM isn't "playing it straight" and is in the bag for Obama?

Or should I have even asked?

Quite. I suppose Anderson forgets that I'm not overly happy with McCain, either... and that I'm an independent

Interesting that you wish to be able to define your own political affiliations, yet are so quick to label others, or refer to their party affiliation incorrectly (leftist, Democrat Party).

At any rate, I think far-right Republican nutjob describes you reasonably well. Since you are into applying lables.

What press is Bithead reading? I can't find it on *my* internet.

Maybe if you stayed out of DU, Kos and Greenwald's site, it'd help.

I am sure that if you are a Democrat, you do not believe that Obama has been overexposed or that there is media bias. And Republicans will likely believe the opposite. Here's an Independent's opinion. I can remember no candidate who has had such an unchallenged ride by the media.

Quite. I suppose Anderson forgets that I'm not overly happy with McCain, either... and that I'm an independent.

Just saying McCain has had a more negative message -- that's a description, not a judgment. I'd say that. It doesn't mean that I support Obama, or that I think that I haven't heard enough from him.

What press is Bithead reading? I can't find it on *my* internet.

So are you saying that bias can only be expressed through quality, and not through quantity? Surely you don't believe that.

No, I'm saying that questions that ask about quantity don't tell you anything about perceived quality.

For example, an Obama supporter could say there is too much negative coverage, while a McCain support can say there is too much positive coverage. But if all you ask about is quantity, as in "Has there been too much coverage", both with respond affirmatively.

So just because 48% of respondents think he is getting too much coverage, you can't infer that to mean that 48% of respondents think he was getting too much positive coverage.

So, does this mean people like negative ads?

I'm with YAJ, here... I find it far more likely, they're tired of watching the press washing Obama's feet daily.