Well, in NYC Rudy dealt with a very hostile press corp all day, every day, for most of his tenure, and he got his message out. We have to put our best foot forward, but you raise a very legitimate point.
The media and the democrats have gotten wise to the tactic of going over their heads to the people. Now the networks routinely refuse to carry important presidential speeches. They kill stories with impunity, because they know that while the alternate media is watching them and competing, they still hold the power to determine the story lines for the week (Anna Nichole being the latest example).
This morning on local radio there was a little story about AP doing an experiment. They decided to not do ANY Paris Hilton stories for a week, and no one even noticed, except for a couple of gossip sites. Now, you might think that this is a good thing in that AP sees that no one is interested in Paris Hilton. What I think they are doing is showing us that THEY can determine what we will be interested in, even at the tabloid level. I have repeatedly heard Fox anchors talk about how "everyone is fascinated" with the Anna Nichole story. I just don't think that is strictily true. A fair number of Americans are interested in whatever is on the news. You could probably make them interested in the production of compost heaps with enough "breaking news" gongs and breathless Shep Smith commentary.
This little experiment by AP is telling me that come next year, we will be treated to a variety of pro-democrat stories and anti-Republican stories, while the speeches and campaign appearances of our candidate are disappeared. If it becomes too obvious, they will simply fill the airways with the current trashy blonde story.