It becomes difficult to take a position on any given event when news outlets give completely opposing viewpoints. Honestly, when The New Yorker attacks a debate that had supposedly no substance and the Wall Street Journal claims it had just as much substance as any other debate this year – but mostly in the second half.

But there are some that would think that such an eloquent and well-written article would not possibly have been written without even watching the entire debate. Why would either of these media outlets blatantly lie, or carry arguments where the assumptions are lies?

Obama ’scandals,’ or rather, manufactured issues linger in the news for 3-5 days, possibly weeks if they’re really juicy. The media typically loses interest in Clinton controversy after 2-3 days.

And how can people reasonably say that the media loves McCain? This is the same media that declared him dead-in-the-water back this summer when he made a few changes in the management of his campaign. This outright ruined his performance for weeks afterwards.

Honestly, there is no one candidate that the media (too diverse a group to even be categorized as one entity) favors.

Last 5 posts by William Trent

• Capacity Utilization - August 16th, 2009
• Corporate Profits - July 12th, 2009
• Capacity Utilization - April 18th, 2009
• Another Record: Capacity Utilization - April 2nd, 2009
• Record Territory - March 27th, 2009