Please define the term “self-identified leftists”.

Communists? Naderites? Registered Democrats? Preferred Clinton to Dole?

Feel free to support your work with evidence.

Again, I ask those who say there is no bias how they would feel if the situation were reversed. If the media had covered McCains trip but ignored Obamas, or if a major paper had let Obama publish his Op Ed but had refused Obamas….

If any of those products of the Republican imagination were real you would have the right to ask those questions. But the facts do not support you. Those who say that McCain's “editorial” was rejected completely ignore that the NYT said come back with one that's not a simple point by point attack of Obama. I notice that there is not one mention of that fact in your posts. Might I suggest you read janine's post on what the McCain campaign did versus what Obama's campaign did? Blame McCain and his staff, not the evil liberal media.

That said, I didn't agree with the NY Times McCain editorial decision, but I'd have to know more about their general policies to have a more informed opinion.

If McCain gave an address to the predicted tens of thousands of people in Berlin, it would be on the news as well.

You can say Obama draws more attention, but he gets a LOT more criticism in the process.
In the meantime, there is no rebutttal to MCain's criticism.
He is treated like a Pope, whose character or integrity can't be questioned, but yes he doesn't draw the same amount of initial attention.
Which would you rather be: the unquestioned attacker, or the object of attention with constant attacks?

i don't even understand how you measure 'fair'.

They certainly reward his defiance of GOP leadership and when he acts like a liberal rather than a conservative. But don't be surprised when things change (no pun intended) after the two conventions.

Some of us don't conform to your mischaracterization and false dichotomy.

It's an uneven playing field, Obama the Democrat and liberal is obviously favored and promoted by the media, and as with his more adoring lay fans, he is their frequent object of worship as well as adoration this year. He did the right thing by making the trip abroad, but the openly uneven playing field the media create will never lead to any positive response for anything McCain may do.

Yes to both, bias and accuracy. Though the left-wing radio I listen to when I'm on the road here in Detroit is the worst of all. (Logic is usually absent and even one of the more calm show hosts blames everything on Reagan — which is said with contempt if not hatred — almost as often as Shaun Mullen blames all the world's woes on Bush.)

As to some of the comments, I did concede they should cover the Obama visit but I am not sure why they need to make such a major deal about it. In addition they gave virtually no coverage to McCain.

Again, I ask those who say there is no bias how they would feel if the situation were reversed. If the media had covered McCains trip but ignored Obamas, or if a major paper had let Obama publish his Op Ed but had refused Obamas….

As I like to point out, the one time conservative voice on PBS worked in the Clinton White House.

Just because the MSM is large corporations does not make them conservative. Please point out anything that Viacom, GE, or Time Warner does that would be considered something that Republicans would support.

They're treated like traitors or heretics by the rest of the media and by people like you for not following the liberal party line or mantra.

OMG!!

You missed my point completely.

There is an alternate media for conservatives that is under absolutely no constraints as far as bias goes–let alone accuracy!!

The so-called MSM is treated like traitors or heretics by the alternative conservative media and by people like you for not following the conservative party line or mantra.

You ignored every example of the alternative media I cited besides the Fox News Channel!!

And as for the problems of the Fox News Channel, maybe you should have clicked on the link I provided. Here it is again.

And bad news grows at it spreads, particularly if deliberately made larger than it need be.

It should have been published. Let McCain's campaign continue to crumble if that's what McCain intended to say in the editorial.

Incidentally, many of us who are rightly critical of Obama and the cult-worship he gets as a darling of many are critics of McCain as well, not by default [no pun intended about the nature of McCain and his campaign) supporters of him.

They're treated like traitors or heretics by the rest of the media and by people like you for not following the liberal party line or mantra.