NY Times Article/Extra Credit

I read an article on the front page of the New York Times for today (Friday) and found it very interesting. It was called "In McCain's Uphill Battle, Winning is an Option" and I found it by using the internet and pulling up the front page on the NY Times website. The main reason I found it interesting is because this specific media is typically more Democratic and this article seemed to provide John McCain with a little more hope than they would typically write about. It talked about how certain mistakes Obama have made may help McCain even though Obama seems to be winning in the polls prior to the election.

The writer, Adam Nagourney, spoke with both democrats and republicans when writing the article and I think that this is a more fair way to write an article. He even stated that aides for both McCain and Obama agree on the fact that McCain is very much still in the game in Florida, a key state that would help him to win the election. He also said that "while most national polls give Mr. Obama a relatively comfortable lead, in many statewide polls, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain are much more closely matched." These statements are important for a writer in the NY Times because, as I said earlier, the NY Times is typically more to the left.

It also is very interesting and helpful to me that I could find this article online because it is not always easy to get your hands on an actual paper. This article was innovative for the paper, and was definitely easy to access online which brings into perspective two important forms of media that we have learned about in class.

O'Reilly vs. Olbermann

I viewed The O'Reilly Factor and Countdown with Keith Olbermann and there were quite a few key differences. One was the fact that Olbermann is so completely biased that I almost did not want to keep watching. At the beginning of O'Reilly, I was not sure I was going to like the show because he kept interrupting the people he was speaking with and it was frustrating me. As the show went on however, I caught on to his humor and realized that his points made a lot of sense. I liked the fact that he did try to get the truth out about both candidates and that he did being up bad points about each. While he may favor one over the other, he did not make it seem overly apparent as Keith Olbermann did.

It is clear that MSNBC is democratic and liberal and everything that Olbermann talked about related to how McCain did something wrong or stupid and I feel that one should only watch this program if they are a democrat because it gave absolutely no justice to John McCain at all. Fox News, on the other hand, is more conservative republican. O'Reilly, however, did try to give justice to facts about both candidates and I think this is much more fair. He had certain segments, for example, when he spoke about ACORN and the problems with that in Obama's campaign, but he also had a segment on a supposed racist remark that McCain made at the second presidential debate. Olbermann on the other hand, was completely anti-McCain and it is hard to watch his show if you do not agree with his viewpoint because this is what the whole show is about.

It is obvious that for their own party reasons and personal beliefs or those of the news station, that O'Reilly and Olbermann choose to use and to not even mention certain topics. This definitely must be taken into consideration when deciding which presidential candidate to support because you need to hear unbiased views in order to make your own decision. I found this was easiest through watching The O'Reilly Factor.