You quoted one site that has been under scrutiny. All those watchdog journalism groups are under scrutiny amongst one another. This one says that that that one is liberal. The other one says that this one is conservative…those “think-tanks” are all a bunch of dumb-asses. Scientific they say…whatever!
If (and thats a huge IF) he really did have more “negative” coverage last week, he will probably have more postive coverage next week. The “negative” coverage he gets is just a pointed “tough” question that actually gives him the wonderful oportunity to address an important issue on the record for all to see. So he gets asked a “tough” question and lefties get to say "ooooh the media is so mean to poor Obama, but then Obama turns it around and answers eloquently, and the liberal hordes scream in ecstasy while pissing their pants in joy. It’s not like he is getting asked real stumpers is he? It’s not like he is getting ambushed is he? It’s not like he takes his microphone in disgust and leaves a venue, right?
In other words, even though a cite has been given that disputes your *assumptions *and perceptions, and even though you are unable to dispute that cite with *facts *or data, you’re still right. But if even you are wrong, things will change next week and then you’ll be right. Does that about sum it up?