It seems that mainstream media favors the democrats and the Obama camp. this election.

My opponent has responded to a few of my arguments, so allow me to respond and expand on my points. In my first argument I stated: 1) Events outside the media's control made differences in coverage necessary. 2) The DNC presented a more compelling and newsworthy storyline than the RNC, which led to more coverage. 3) Negative stories regarding Palin's personal life are the responsibility of the media to report. They should have been foreseen by the Republicans who may or may not have vetted Palin. 4) My opponents assertions regarding an experience with a pollster seem unrealistic. 5) Parties, not networks, are often responsible for convention content. I retract none of my arguments in light of my opponents responses and I will endeavor to strengthen them. Argument I) My opponent agrees with the central idea of this argument, that more newsworthy events such as hurricanes cut into the time the media devoted to the Republican National Convention. This was known and even endorsed by the RNC. Republicans, according to the New York Times, had considered condensing the entire convention into one or two nights featuring only major addresses by Palin, McCain, and a handful of others. This was in response to events in the gulf coast. I believe the quote was "We can not be seen having a party while Americans are struggling for their lives." There can be no doubt, then, that the Republican Convention was designed to be less grand than the Democratic Convention from the start. As to the tone of the coverage, which my opponent contests was biased in favor of McCain, I can say that Ann Curry did interview Mrs. Obama and did not interview Mrs. McCain. Ann Curry did interview Mrs. McCain in May of 2008, but that was not in relation to the convention coverage. It seems to me that your rebuttal is a comparison of apples to oranges. One reporter's interview of a candidates wife can hardly be compared to a different reporter's interview of a different candidate's former opponent. There are different styles of journalism just as there are different styles of nearly every other profession. I have seen video of McCain's interview with Brian Williams on 9/1/2008, and I thought it was very professionally done, and I think it would be difficult for my opponent to make a legitimate argument otherwise. Since you brought up Dr. Phil, I would offer that he is not a reporter, but is an expert on family matters and the attention focused on Bristol Palin is certainly a family matter. Thus, Dr. Phil had a perfectly legitimate reason for any appearance he made. If he was asked to comment on political matters such as the war in Iraq, that may have been inappropriate; that was not the case. Rebuttal #2 was unclear. The open question of "why" does not advance any idea nor rebut any specific point I made. My opponent then proceeded with, "Equal coverage, equal and balanced "newsworthyness. [sic]" As I already addressed and my opponent conceded, equal coverage was not possible because of events outside both the party and the media's control. What my opponent meant by "balanced newsworthiness" I can not be sure. Rebuttal #3 involved my opponent accepting my argument that Bristol Palin's pregnancy is newsworthy. My opponent asked for equal scrutiny of the Obama campaign. I would offer the Reverend Wright fiasco, Obama's connection with the Weathermen domestic terror group, Obama's "bitter comments," and the many criticisms of Michelle Obama as the scrutiny my opponent asked for. Rebuttal #4 involved my opponent insisting that the story he wrote about a pollster did in fact occur. I do not now, nor did I ever, call into question the truthfulness of this story. What I do question is the legitimacy of the individual as a pollster. As stated before, an opinion analyst (pollster) makes a career out of accurate information. My opponent offered no reason why a professional pollster would seek to intentionally bias respondents. I do not think my opponent lied, I think my opponent was approached by someone writing for their campus newsletter. Finally I will expand my argument with a few points. #1 - According to the New York Times, MSNBC fired political reporters and anchormen Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann for incendiary and biased commentary. While MSNBC does not fall under our definition of "mainstream," these firings came after pressure was applied by parent company NBC. Apparently, NBC is fairly concerned about any allegations of bias and seems to take their neutrality seriously. #2 - I will pose the question to my opponent: If the media is bias against republicans, as you say, what is the effect? A good argument has exigency and causality and a good case shows detriment in some way. Assuming you are able to rebut my arguments, would you please state why bias is a problem?