Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler
How much positive coverage does he merit, or doesn't that count? Is coverage a good way to judge "fairness"?
Don't look at the Obama WH for a view of diversity--its another good ole boy club with females largely excluded.
The Secret Service guys involved with hookers should be big news. In the pre-Clinton era, I bet there would have been significant moral outrage from all quarters. My issue is when it seems to only follow party lines.
|
Considering the situation he was handed by Bush, I think he deserves considerable positive coverage. All you hard right folks with your selective amnesia seem to have forgotten that Bush drove our economy into the ditch with his wars, unfunded prescription drug plan, Bernacke, Sarbanes-Oxley, the list goes on. Not even Ronald Reagan could ride in on his white horse and solve all the problems in four years. But, just turn off your frontal lobe and rely on the medulla...
I find it especially interesting that the champion of 'media bias' can't even respond in a fashion that displays interest in a different POV concerning the supposed area of expertise.
Diversity... see above.
Secret Service issue. Unrelated smoke screen, which isn't even remotely Obama's fault, no matter how much you want it to be. It isn't 'big news'
maybe not Fox, maybe Rush....
