So I open up the article (featured in "The Nation" by the way, a notoriously liberal publication) and it says in bold letters:
"No candidate since John F. Kennedy and perhaps none since FDR, has enjoyed such cozy relations with the press."
I had to read it twice. I was flabbergasted. Now I don't know about JFK or FDR, but Clinton didn't get a free ride with the press? What about his wife in the '90s? And most certainly Obama now, especially all of the pictures of Obama taken at a high angle so he looks presidential with the seal behind his head like a halo. Maybe I'm missing something here...Makes you wonder how they get away with printing such things. And it's not like the article in "The Nation" was an editorial - it was an article!! The Media needs to get more responsibility for what they feed to people. Someone's going to read that and believe it!!
Or maybe I need to read different papers. I went to the BBC and CNN yesterday, only saw stories about how great Obama will be and how Michelle Obama is gearing up to be the first African American first lady. Today, Newsmax.com had a story about how McCain backed the Supreme Court's decision on the 2nd amendment. But that's a fact, not opinion. Maybe the article was more referring to the number of stories about him, rather than the opinions in them (if any)? Or maybe it's the lack of news stories about him... I don't know any more. Just how are they measuring how McCain is a "media darling"? Because he doesn't have nearly as many skeletons in his closet as Obama?
Odd how they are bothered that he is "favored", but it doesn't bother them that the media was one of the main reasons of how Obama got as far as he has (and potentially why he might get elected). Proof yet again how free speech comes with a double standard.