Eric Yost wrote: "For example, in assuming a 'faltering' McCain campaign, people will ignore that Palin is considered the second most popular of the political quartet in the race." This is a non sequitur. The standards of a faltering McCain campaign (eg. polling poorly in crucial states, traditional conservative stalwarts turning on the campaign) are independent of the popularity of Palin. Reading a wide variety of media sources, it is regularly noted that Palin campaign stops are larger and more energetic than McCain stops. I can't remember the last article I read on a Biden campaign event. Even McCain admits that his campaign is not doing as well as he would like. To claim that the belief in a faltering McCain campaign can only arise from unbalanced sources is odd. Eric continues, quoting: "One example cited in the article is the likelihood of reporting popularity shifts. CBS, for example, was 33 percent more likely to report a five-point *drop* in approval for Bush than a five-point *rise* in approval for Bush. What does that mean? Either "drops" are more newsworthy in general, or they coincide with CBS's "predilections." If these are my only two options, I think I would go with the 'newsworthy' option, if 'newsworthy' means 'will sell more papers'. However, I would like to return to my earlier point which was that it is impossible to articulate how media outlets should be balanced except with reference to examples of being unbalanced. Put differently, talk of balance in news coverage is meaningful only when considering examples that might qualify for being unbalanced, and therefore should be avoided. What I would be interested in are the standards Eric would insist on for balanced reporting. Sincerely, Phil Enns Yogyakarta, Indonesia ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html