I think it's interesting that all of the complaints about the unbalanced coverage end up resulting in even MORE Obama coverage!

Hah, that's a good point.

The thing is, as you said in your post, McCain's gone on three foreign trips in the past four months, so since it's so frequent, it's not really as exciting and newsworthy.

Oh, and regarding the disparity between the number of stories about Social Security vs. a high-profile figure using scandalous language to describe the candidate he's endorsing...really? Really, is anyone surprised by that?

So by that logic then its better for a candidate to just not go at all? Or to not go as much?

Maybe part of why Obama is getting the coverage is because its his first time in what? 2 years or something?

I heard someone from the McCain camp say something like "Lets drop the pretense and call this "fact finding" mission what it is, the first ever overseas campaign rally." Ha! I thought that was pretty funny.

Even though its obv. biased and unfair, surprise surprise, I still don't think the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea.

a rally...

Well hopefully some more facts are found and maybe the website will be changed again to reflect more of the attitudes of the commanders over in Iraq...

Not saying it's better or worse, that's just the way it is. Dog bites man vs man bites dog.

And re: "Lets drop the pretense and call this "fact finding" mission what it is, the first ever overseas campaign rally."

Hasn't McCain been criticizing Obama for not going? Though I agree, it's unlikely Obama will discover anything we don't know already from behind 30 Secret Service agents, which is why I think politicians touring the region is wasteful.

I'm glad he's going but with so many news media surrounding him and taping him, it's going to be a less authentic experience for us and for him for that matter.

I'm not sure what you mean by authentic, but it's not like he's going to have anything even coming near to approaching something remotely similar to the experience of a regular citizen or one of our soldiers.

why is it so bad, for you, to have him sit with some soldiers and talk to them... or even listen to them and let them tell him what is really going on day to day and what has changed since the surge, etc.

and what is so bad, for you, about him sitting with those in charge and hearing first hand, face to face, what they're dealing with, what the victories are and where we still need to work on things.

While a media circus obviously isn't helpful, even if he only gets to sit and chat with these people for 20 minutes, I still think it's worth it. One, it shows the troops and the military that he is trying to listen to what they have to say (and since the media is quite mum about their side, it's good to have a first hand account). Two, it shows the American public that he's trying to not come into office and cut and run, but he is willing (perhaps) to listen to those on the ground before coming up with his exit strategy.

"media are"

sorry. I think the J school may take away my master's now.

That's completely not what I'm saying at all.

I think it's good to sit with soldiers to have conversations with them. I think it's good for him to sit down with those in charge.

I think it's silly for him to go over there and pretend like it's going to give him some new perspective on the area, because his experience there will not reflect the true state of things. I'm guessing things will seem pretty safe from his perspective, and I worry that politicians who do make trips over there end up with a rosier view of what's going on.

Why can't the soldiers and leaders come to him? Or why can't he just go there and meet with them without the pretense of him being there to "fact-find"?

I think the fact finding part was Obama's words, not McCains.

I do see the bias. It's unfortunate but understandable, given that, yes, the major news networks are about ratings and what the viewers want--infotainment. Obama is a fresher and more compelling public figure for a variety of reasons; it's natural that more time would be spent covering him.

But that's no good for the national debate or election, I think. There definitely is a huge imbalance, and it does both candidates a disservice: the relative lack of coverage of McCain makes him seem a bit less relevant, while the overcoverage of Obama causes trivialities to become issues and may lead to a backlash against him (the same thing that happens to celebrities who are overexposed). But in the end the problem is that most viewers seem to be more interested in those trivialities and less in questions of actual policy or substance.

As for Obama's trip there, I'm divided. I think it's hugely admirable for either candidate to take the time, make the effort, and brave the risks (risks there still are) to go meet with soldiers on the ground in the war zone, and I do think that he will get some invaluable perspective and insight on the situation. I don't, however, think this trip will give him any more credibility in the eyes of those who think he has none. And of course that is a prime political reason for him going there.

Jude I agree with you 100%! You smart cookie!

Oh, I forgot to mention that to me the problem isn't that so many journalists are going with Obama, but that they didn't go with McCain.

I support Obama and want him to win, but I want this to be a fair election with a real debate, not a battle of star power.

Thanks, cab

Jude is a very smart cookie, indeed!

Any comment I would add here is pointless, as Jude has read my mind and spoken it waaaaay more eloquently than I could have hoped. So really, this is just an "I agree with Jude" post.

Jude is a supastar today!

Jude is off to the doctor's. See you ladies around later!

Yep I agree with Jude's post #13 as well - also agree with the others she's a smart cookie. And we all know I could never state my thoughts on this anywhere near as clearly as Jude did.

All three network news anchors?!? I wonder if they aren't going to say they covered history. Obama's trip is purely a political move to get McCain's camp to be quiet about the trip. This won't change anything, and it's justa waste of the taxpayer's money.

I agree, I worry about the backlash from overexposure and too much attention paid to trivial things. Do y'all remember the hullaballoo over him quitting smoking?

Is it fair to count articles about Jesse Jackson's remarks as Obama coverage? Obama's article count is up this week because of the New Yorker cartoon as well - does that benefit him? Headlines like today's "Obama supporters more excited than McCain's" don't really do either candidate much good and don't tell voters anything important.

More than 900 jobs were cut at newspapers across the country in the past 30 days - maybe reporting right now has more to do with desperation and less to do with thought.

"In fact, McCain has taken three foreign trips in the past four months, and not one network anchor has accompanied him."

2 of those trips were to Canada and Mexico...not exactly huge news.

I think that we should keep in mind, just because Obama gets news coverage doesn't mean it is flattering. They nitpick every little thing about Obama, meanwhile McCain can refer to a country that hasn't existed in 15 years 2 times in 2 days and it gets no flack. The really interesting thing is that McCain made this SAME mistake about the Czech Republic in 2000, 8 years ago! Then Governor George Bush chided him about not knowing his countries! If Obama had made these mistakes, the media would talk about it for a month.

"Lets drop the pretense and call this "fact finding" mission what it is, the first ever overseas campaign rally."

And McCain's parade in the Bagdad Market was for fact finding? The thing is that President Bush doesn't go to the middle east every time he needs to make a foreign policy decision. McCain didn't go to the middle east right before changing his policy on Afghanistan to follow Obama's.

Obama IS meeting with very important world leaders. I think that is a great thing, and will be informative. Can he spend 24/7 with these world leaders? No, not realistic. I think having the news reps there doesn't mean it will be fluff...I think including the American public in sharing his views on world policy is very important. Maybe now we can hear 5 minutes worth of his opinions, instead of just 10 seconds that the pundits then give their opinion of for 6 hours.

I saw on Keith Olbermann last night, okay not the most unbiased source, but I am sure the facts were right. McCain did not invite the media when he went to the Middle East so while that does not prohibit them from covering it, Obama invited the press to travel with him. Obviously there is going to be more coverage, though I in no way deny that Obama overall gets more attention.

I agree with supastar Jude. Excellent comment.

I also agree with Jillness. Although Obama's name comes up more often, a lot of the stories aren't exactly flattering.

Should Mac get equal amounts of negative press? Or are we just looking for equal amounts of coverage positive or negative?

"Should Mac get equal amounts of negative press? Or are we just looking for equal amounts of coverage positive or negative?"

Good point!

If Keith Olbermann is right and McCain did not invite the press to join him while Obama did, then obviously, Obama is going to get more coverage on his trip. But I do think Torgle is right to question how much one might learn in Iraq with a media circus surrounding them constantly. I don't know if he will change his perspective, but I hope he will listen to what people have to say and that they will in turn listen to him. He'd have to go in with an open mind and I think that he will.

So many good points, Jill and kastarte.

I'm also kinda laughing at McCain's criticism of Obama. First it's "Ooooh, he's never been to the middle east", then it's "Ooooh it's all a publicity stunt". Jeez.

I'm not just questioning how much he'll learn with the media circus, I think even McCain's more low-key trip is kind of silly. It's not like they're just going to let him stroll down the street in Ramadi by himself.

Right where ever he goes, he'll have a buffer of some kind. Hopefully he'll get enough from eye witness accounts from soldiers, citizens and higher ups.

I would also like to point out that I wouldn't want to see either one of them "stroll down the street in Ramadi by himself" Obviously they would be targets.

I do think that the leaders he is going to meet with will be beneficial.

I have to point out that Iraq and Afghanistan aren't even technically on the schedule (for security reasons they dont specify when people will be there). I have read different things from different sources, but it appears that he will be discussing the Israel/Palestinian conflict with important leaders in those areas, and I think that is pretty monumental.

Ive seen conflicting reports as to whether or not its true that McCain didn't invite the media, so I'm withholding judgement on that one.

As for Obama, I mean trying to speak at the Brandenburg Gate? How exactly is that fact finding? What facts need to be found there?

That is a stump speech.

I didn't think the Brandenburg Gate speech was part of this trip...

Re: I would also like to point out that I wouldn't want to see either one of them "stroll down the street in Ramadi by himself" Obviously they would be targets.

I do wish there was a magic way for them to do that, though. I think if they could walk around unrecognized they could learn a lot more.

1 - more coverage does not mean more votes, it may mean more critisim (actually that is what it usually means). (remember all the Kerry Flip-Flop/ Swift Boat - I don't even remember what people said about Bush.)

2 - the media always goes crazy for the dumb-attention getting story; Jackson cutting nuts off is a winner compared to boring social security which we hear about every four years but never changes.

im excited about this trip. its historic. and i think these media folks want to be included in a trip abroad with a US leader that will be supported... people love him everywhere. it will be so awesome to see people around the world supporting him rather than protesting like they do when our current president shows up.

I wish the media (not you CS) agencies would stop reporting on themselves! All the news gathering agencies are more interested in whether they've failed the American public or how they lied to us or is it too much or too little coverage. Just report the news about what's going on, for God's sakes.

Brandenburg Gate was on a list of many other sites that they were getting information about. I think it has been way blown out of proportion. Not to mention, that even if he went there, speaking publically for 30 minutes doesn't prevent him from speaking with Germany's leaders for 23.5 hours the rest of the day.

Not directed at anyone specific, but I am a bit confused by the mentality that Obama can only do 1 thing per day.

Good point, Rac!

"Jackson cutting nuts off is a winner compared to boring social security which we hear about every four years but never changes."

Isn't that sad?

I hadn't thought of that, but yeah, it will be cool not to have people protest when our president shows up.

... there needs to be an emoticon for rose colored glasses...

Or you could just say, "Lady, I think you've got rose-colored glasses on."

But if that's in reference to people not protesting, then I don't think there's any pink eyewear involved. People loathe George Bush. Sure, maybe our new president will do something new to make the world angry, but it will be nice to start with a clean slate.

why? I don't need my comments dictated.

I don't think there will be an automatic clean slate. I think some of the world views of us are not just from this one president. Hence, rose colored glasses.

I've already said, I'm neither queen nor dictator. Comment as you please.

Well, the president will have a clean slate, if not our country. Whoever wins, I think it will be good PR for the country to get Bush out of office.

snip snip!

And PR is all that matters.

It's not all that matters, but the fewer people that hate us, the better. Decreasing anti-American sentiment can only help to decrease the threat of terrorism.