News balance no easy task -- Political Candidates, Chicago Whit...

The Tribune is well respected for promoting diversity in its news staff. However, that diversity obviously does not extend to political leanings. Finding a conservative reporter or editor has about the same percentage of success as Diogenes seeking an honest elected person in Washington or Springfield.

"at times I do get a sense that reporters, consciously or not, are rooting for Obama "

At times? Jeez. Do even read your own newspaper? Your "analysis" only mentioned the front page...please read a little deeper...and don't forget to read the heads for articles on this website and the blogs.
Your columnists and writers - Zorn, Trice, Chapman, McCormick - to name a few, are thoroughly in the tank for Obama. Analyze their writing and then tell me what you "sense."

It's as obvious as a nuclear attack.

Wow. That's a lot of verbiage just to say that they are not going to do anything to correct the problem. I believe that if the tables were turned and if Obama had won the nomination early and McCain and another Romney were still duking it out, the Tribune would still have the same disparity in coverage.

Don't we as readers have a responsibility to seek out alternative sources of news in order to receive a fuller picture? I'm not surprised that newspapers have certain political leanings. Newspapers are, after all, written by people who undoubtedly have their own biases and these biases will always find a way into their writings.

What does surprise me is that readers actually think their complaints will suddenly shift a paper's deeply entrenched bias. These journalists aren't sitting around in board rooms with charts and graphs trying to find the most effective ways of promoting one nominee over the other - they are just writing what they honestly believe is the news. However, over time, certain biases do appear, but we all have to recognize those are very difficult to eliminate.

There are other papers. And thanks to the internet, a quick search on Google News or something similar will help you find many articles on each candidate - from all angles. It only takes a few minutes of your time and it'll help you to broaden your horizons.

If you feel this strongly about the bias, the Tribune's loss of your readership will mean far more than a few complaints.

I just saw Obama's interview on The View.

I've seen a lot of stories about Hillary and her fashion choices and 'look'.

Eric Zorn has some piece currently going referring to her pantsuit.

Watching Obama this morning, I was just amazed that no one ever comments on his fashion sense or presentation. Sitting on his chair, the only way he could have looked more effeminate was if he'd tucked a foot behind one of the ankle of his crossed legs. He sat there like a priss with limp wrists, sissy legs, and NO presence. This guy wants to be Commander in Chief? He came across as the last guy you'd pick for your recess softball game.

So, yes, I think there is imbalance in coverage. But as recent discussions about race have brought out, there are multiple aspects to what is considered coverage and open to discussion.

Obama, like Bush before him, seems to be the media's darling. I distrust this after the last fiasco. I think Hillary is my choice. She's more qualified and maybe more politically savvy.

Notice how the story omits the fact that over 80% of journalists vote for democrats? Bias by omission on a story about bias. Very telling.

To JMO:

I take a bit of offense at your comments. I am a gay man, and an limp wristed priss, but I can give orders with the best of them and never have a problem getting the straightest of my subordinates to do exactly what I need for them to do. You give very little credit to our military, and unfortunately seem to think that machismo is the only barometer for evaluating one's ability to be Commander-in-Chief.

As far at our extraordinarily professional military goes, they take orders from the person with greater rank then they. Every time, no questions asked. They are fiercely dedicated to the idea of civilian leadership, as is our nation's Constitution and history.

Also, our current president is an example of your failed logic. No one could have come off as more macho and manly than this guy who bandies about challenges to terrorists with, "Bring it on!" He's both macho and a failure as Commander-in-Chief, thus negating your argument.

Please offer some critical analysis to Senator Obama instead of just implying that you think he is or acts gay. Grow up, this isn't junior high.

I wholeheartedly agree with Jim.

In addition to what he said, I'd like to point out that these discussions on what Hillary wears or how Obama presents himself are the useless topics that hinder the US from objectively sizing up each of these nominees for what they truly stand for.

Which is more important - how a man sits in a chair or his foreign policies? How a woman chooses her wardrobe or her policies on education?

Please look past the superficial debates and consider the real issues.

Interesting. By the way, whatever happened to Vicki Iseman ?She seems to have completely disappeared in the barrage of the Trib's Rezco and Pastor Wright coverage.

The wingnuts never cease to amaze me. Do any of these idiots really think for one second that the Tribune is going to endorse anyone other than John McCain for President?
McCain could die before the election, the GOP could replace him with a monkey on rollerskates, and the Trib would endorse the monkey on rollerskates, simply because he had an (R) next to his name.
Get real people!

One also has to look very carefully within the Trib's pages to find anything at all about John Hagee's political and religious views and his role in the McCain campaign. Pastor Wright's views must be waaayy more important than Pastor Hagee's, I guess. I would suggest Tribune readers not familiar with the way Hagee views the world try looking online for more information. Lots there to digest.

I find it hard to believe, as Jim and Kenneth stated on how we would look at someone based on their mannerism or dress.

This is exactly what is wrong with our country.

Can you feel the sting of high gas prices, a burden of debt in the trillions that will take decades to pay off, plumming housing values, a declining intra structure (roads, building, sewer systems) and let's not forget immigration and exporting of jobs. I don't need John Wayne, I need a leader who can make us respectable to the world after this idiot of a president for the last 8 years has destroyed all of our credibility.

Also, newpaper staff's have familes, etc., worry about their mortgage and have opinions just like us. As the Canadian writer wrote, read more and form your own opinions.

Pam wrote:

I find it hard to believe, as Jim and Kenneth stated on how we would look at someone based on their mannerism or dress.
This is exactly what is wrong with our country.
...

If appearance doesn't matter, why is the Tribune and other major media outlets constantly harping on Hillary's choice of yellow outfits? Why did Nixon lose in 1960 because of his 5 o'clock shadow?

If you don't think appearances count, you what ostriches show when they bury their heads in the sand.

I am well aware that appearances don't count for everything, Bush is indeed a prime example of that. Or is he? Short little bantam strutting around...what might that have warned people about?

I stand by my own personal impression: Obama looked weak and effeminate. Are you saying I can't have an opinion if it doesn't match yours?

I'm with you Pam. We are all thinking, rational humans, or at least we have the capacity to be.

Applying critical thinking is important when judging who should be the leader of our country. What are their real experiences? What are their ideas and plans? How do they frame their debate and stance on the issues? Do they pander or do they at least attempt to tell the hard truth to people who might not want to hear it?

Rationality is defined in economic terms to mean that one makes decisions based on what is best for oneself. So, one must ask if the stances and positions taken by the politician would be individually beneficial? For example a poor, rural voter might have been interested in George Bush's talk about compassionate conservatism in 2000. Perhaps that same voter might have learned that Bush's economic policies didn't really do much for the poor and then rationally decided to vote for Kerry the next time around because his policies would have been more beneficial for the poor.

Again, this isn't junior high school when we voted for the most popular and well-liked kids for the student council, but the rather the time to put petty differences and prejudices aside and truly analyze these folks.

Harrison wrote:

The Tribune is well respected for promoting diversity in its news staff. However, that diversity obviously does not extend to political leanings. Finding a conservative reporter or editor has about the same percentage of success as Diogenes seeking an honest elected person in Washington or Springfield.

This is an excellent point. Even a recent Harvard study showed that the vast majority of working press are left-wing in outlook. Based on their voting behavior, if the news media chose presidents, we would have had Presidents McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry.

Yet all talk of "diversity" in the newsroom just centers around replacing liberal white males with liberal women, blacks and Latinos.

And the odd thing is, the liberals in the media don't really understand justhow unrepresentative and out of touch they are with the bulk of the American populace.

So how about the nature of the articles? A simple count really doesnt tell us much does it?

In this country we need to have more debate teams.

It's not personal and our differences are good for us and as a nation. I believe in Freedom of the Press and your right to express your thoughts.

Newspapers it appears are afraid of expressing or editorializing these days. Readers are anger at the writers, the editor or whoever made the decision to put to many of Obama, Hillary or McClain's stories/photo's in the newspaper.
I certainly won't cancel my newspaper because I disagree with the editorial.

I would like to see some good old fashion reporting on what has gone right in the last eight years with the Republican party.

There's my two cents - just the facts and it's certainly not personal.

The problem with your point, poliwriter, is that the Tribune has been staunchly conservative editorially forever. They endorse Republican after Republican for president and every other elected office.

Yes, journalists are mostly left leaning, but so are most college graduates, especially those that major in the humanities. Journalists are people that are naturally curious, eager to learn new things and be exposed to new situations, and are always questioning the establishment. Those don't really sound like conservative values to me.

The bulk of Americans actually agree with most policies and positions associated with Democrats. Polling that asks people about issues, while not connecting them to a particular political party, shows that Americans are actually more progressive and liberal than their voting record would suggest.

Also, how can you guys continue to harp on the liberal media when John McCain has been getting such a cake walk? I don't see the media running constant stories about all the crazy religious leaders that are supporting McCain. Especially after he flip-flopped on them, calling them "Agents of Intolerance" a few years ago, but now glad handing and making appearances with them.

While many journalists might have personal leanings to the left politically, their vast influence certainly didn't help McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, or Kerry get elected did it? Also, the liberal media doesn't repeat, lock step and word for word what Democratic politicians say. On the other hand, if you spend any time listening or watching Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Scarborough, or any of the other right leaning members of the media you'll find the exact opposite. It's as if the Bush administration releases talking points and these folks in the media just repeat. Oh wait, they do exactly that. It's as if they write the commentary for Fox News.