In an ideal world, wouldn’t the stories be 100 percent mixed for both? Don’t reporters, editors and producers understand that it their job to present facts and all sides of an argument? This really shouldn’t be that difficult.
Well, no... If a candidate has done some pretty ugly things, I would expect the coverage to be pretty much negative. Alternatively, you would think that a truly stellar candidate would get good press most of the time.
In this campaign, however, McCain hasn't done anything particularly ugly -- he's running a pretty good campaign, in fact, despite what the MSM reports.
The media have actually dug into what McCain has said and done, and his record and comments are pretty unexceptional. And thus we must conclude that the MSM is looking for things to report on negatively; or they take what he's said and spin it that way.
For Obama, OTOH, it's all smoke and sunshine up the @$$. The media have given him a pass on almost everything he's said, and have not dug into his past at all. I think a lot of the reporters love him in both a religious and even carnal way, and they'll give him a break for their own selfish reasons.