I don’t get this “media bias” thing. The issue has come up in the various election threads on both sides, but it’s not explored beyond a couple of posts.
Obama’s minister Wright was in the press for weeks and people were trying to attribute the minister’s statements to Obama or at least suggest that Obama ratified Wright’s views. Every time Wright opened his mouth, it was all over the news and it was hard to avoid. The implication was guilt by association. It came to a head and made headlines when Obama dumped his church.
Palin’s minister and her own churchy statements raise issues, yet we get little more than a passing reference to it by the media. The media raised and then quickly dismissed the whole Alaskan Independence Party thing. Why does Palin get a pass?
The GOP now claims media bias against Palin? Is that a disingenuous effort to garner sympathy for poor little Palin? Is there more to it?
On the other hand, some GOP folks are claiming there has been no real effort to dig into Obama’s past, yet there is a concerted effort to dig up Palin’s entire record and throw it in her face. For example, some Palin emails have surfaced with her handwriting in the margins talking about how she praised the bridge to nowhere. I don’t recall anyone digging up Obama’s emails. The Dems claim the media is treating Palin with kid gloves.
Both sides are claiming media bias. What’s the straight dope?