We have seen such examples of shameless bias in the past. During the 2000 Presidential the media bias favored the Republican candidate. At one point I wrote a journalist who I felt had been very unfair in judging the relative merits of Geoge W. Bush and Al Gore. In my letter I pointed to something which the entire press core had ignored, namely Bush's poor record in getting important legislation past through the republican dominated Texas State Legislature. Why, was Bush still popular in Texas, I asked. My answer was because Texans expect little of their governors, and Bush had not disappointed them. From my perspective what I pointed out in that letter did accurately foresee problems in the Bush presidency that the medea in 2000 failed to foresee.

It is difficult to see the candidate you support get unfair treatment in the press. But just remember how much you enjoyed it when the shoe was on the other foot.

It is difficult to see the candidate you support get unfair treatment in the press. But just remember how much you enjoyed it when the shoe was on the other foot.

I voted for Gore in 2000 because he supported tech and I worked in the tech industry.

I don't mind if writers from partisan journals like The Nation or The National Review campaign for their stated candidates, but magazines like Newsweek sell themselves as being middle-of the road and nonpartisan.

When journalists are openly and unashamedly biased, readers know that they're getting only half the news - the news that supports their candidate. Why should anyone pay full price for only half the news?

That's one reason the New York Times is heading towards bankrupcy.

I guess I can finally convince my wife to drop Newsweek as a source.

Usually, there is partisanship, but nothing on the level of this election. I need to study more political election history.

I supported Gore in 2000. I don't remember things being anything like this.

Hay Guys were you living in a cave during the year 2000? Robert Perry wrote on Feb. 1, 2000:

To read the major newspapers and to watch the TV pundit shows, one can't avoid the impression that many in the national press corps have decided that Vice President Al Gore is unfit to be elected the next president of the United States.

Across the board -- from The Washington Post to The Washington Times, from The New York Times to the New York Post, from NBC's cable networks to the traveling campaign press corps -- journalists don't even bother to disguise their contempt for Gore anymore.

At one early Democratic debate, a gathering of about 300 reporters in a nearby press room hissed and hooted at Gore's answers. Meanwhile, every perceived Gore misstep, including his choice of clothing, is treated as a new excuse to put him on a psychiatrist's couch and find him wanting.

Journalists freely call him "delusional," "a liar" and "Zelig." Yet, to back up these sweeping denunciations, the media has relied on a series of distorted quotes and tendentious interpretations of his words, at times following scripts written by the national Republican leadership.

In December, for instance, the news media generated dozens of stories about Gore's supposed claim that he discovered the Love Canal toxic waste dump. "I was the one that started it all," he was quoted as saying. This "gaffe" then was used to recycle other situations in which Gore allegedly exaggerated his role or, as some writers put it, told "bold-faced lies."

But behind these examples of Gore's "lies" was some very sloppy journalism. The Love Canal flap started when The Washington Post and The New York Times misquoted Gore on a key point and cropped out the context of another sentence to give readers a false impression of what he meant.

The error was then exploited by national Republicans and amplified endlessly by the rest of the news media, even after the Post and Times grudgingly filed corrections.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/020100a.html

In November of 2001 Rolling Stone did a story on the Gore Press coverage which included the following quotes:
"The coverage seemed to be much more aggressive and adversarial than I'd ever seen before," says Scott Shepard, a veteran newspaper reporter who has four presidential campaigns to his credit and who covered the Gore campaign for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

"There was a fair amount of animus as time wore on with Gore," says James Warren, who was then Washington bureau chief for the Chicago Tribune, referring to the mood on the press plane. "People were overly hard toward him. He's a decent, honest fellow. He was not the greatest candidate, but he's not dishonest. And some in the press came perilously close to saying that."

Recalls one network-television correspondent who spent lots of time on the presidential campaign, "There just developed among a certain group of people covering Gore, particularly the print people, a real disdain for him. Everything was negative. They had a grudge against [Gore]. I don't know how else to put it."

Rolling Stone also notes:

"The fact that Gore never said he invented the Internet didn't stop the press from telling, and retelling, a story that fit into its prepackaged narrative: Gore is a liar. But it was the journalists, trying hard to paint a damning portrait of Gore, who played it loose with the facts and perpetrated what added up to a complete fabrication."
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5920188/the_press_vs_al_gore

In 2007 Vanity Fair did a peice on media treatment of Gore in 2000.

"MSNBC anchor Brian Williams went after Gore's clothes at least five times in one week. "Here is a guy taking off his suits.… This is the casual sweater look—what's going on here?" … "He would have been in a suit a month ago." … "He's wearing these polo shirts that don't always look natural on him." Williams's frequent guest Newsweek's Howard Fineman later chimed in: "I covered his last presidential campaign, in 1988. One day he was in the conservative blue suit, the next he was playing lumberjack at the V.F.W. hall in New Hampshire."

The Washington Post's David Broder later found Gore too focused in his convention speech on what he'd do as president. "But, my, how he went on about what he wants to do as president," wrote Broder. "I almost nodded off."

Jonathan Alter points out, "Overall, the press was harder on Gore than it was on Bush.… The consequences of [that] in such a close election were terrifying."

A study conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 76 percent of stories about Gore in early 2000 focused on either the theme of his alleged lying or that he was marred by scandal, while the most common theme about Bush was that he was "a different kind of Republican."
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710

Here are some more quotes:
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Hardball, 11/18/02: I think, in the 2000 election, I think [the media] were fairly brutal to Al Gore…If they had done that to a Republican candidate, I’d be going on your show saying, you know, that they were being biased.
KAREN TUMULTY, Reliable Sources, 9/28/02: When you compare [Gore’s press coverage] to the kind of press treatment that George W. Bush got, I think that—you cannot argue that that was not uneven.

JOSH MARSHALL, Reliable Sources, 8/10/02: I think deep down most reporters just have contempt for Al Gore. I don’t even think it’s dislike. It’s more like a disdain and contempt…And this was, you know, a year-and-a-half before the election, I think you could say this. This wasn’t something that happened because he ran a bad campaign. If he did, it was something that predated it.

NEAL GABLER, Fox NewsWatch, 12/21/02: I can’t think of a single major presidential candidate who was as savaged by the so-called liberal media as this man was. This guy was savaged…They gave him terrible, terrible press.

JANE HALL, Fox NewsWatch, 12/21/02 (continuing directly): It’s really true. I did an analysis of a hundred stories in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Associated Press, and the Pew Center later confirmed what I said…Every time he opened his mouth, it was “Al Gore, who said he invented the Internet, said this.” And they loved George Bush. That is the great irony.

PAUL WALDMAN, The American Prospect, 12/18/02: Bush got better press coverage in 2000 not simply because he was treated so kindly but because Al Gore was treated so poorly. While many factors influence the coverage a candidate receives, one is inescapable: You can’t get good press if reporters hate your guts. And in 2000, reporters hated Gore’s guts…Reporters decided before the 2000 campaign began that Gore was dishonest, and while he occasionally gave them support for this impression, he was also skewered for lies he never told.

MARK HALPERIN, 12/23/02: Somewhere along the line, the dominant political reporters for most dominant news organizations decided they didn’t like him, and they thought the story line on any given day was about his being a phony or a liar or a waffler. Within the subculture of political reporting, there was almost peer pressure not to say something neutral, let alone nice, about his ideas, his political skills, his motivations.

In short Al got very badly and unfairly treated by the media in 2000. Now it is the turn of the right wind to feel what unfair and hostile press coverage is really like.

This will be THE single most fraudulent, biased, bought election in U.S. history.

There was NOTHING like this in the 2000 or 2004 elections. Actually, there was, as voter fraud from ACORN was already in play, but this time, they are being aided and abetted by numerous other groups and especially the media.

There was NOTHING like this from Newsweek or Time or even CNN and MSNBC for the Republicans, NOTHING. Obama is a fraud, a liar, a cartoon character Marxist and the media is guilty of massive cover-up.

Jesus Christ Almighty! You right wingers nut jobs are such winning, belly aching, losers. My God, It is an election! This is just so stupid. Grow up. The economy is a wreck. We are going to be lucky if we stave off a major world depression. It all happened o the watch of George W. Bush's Ideologically right wing government. No one one the right foresaw the disaster, You guys are loosing this election because you messed up big time. George W. Bush has been one of the worst presidents in American History, if not the al time worst. He has lead the nation to the brink of unmitigated disaster. And you guys are complaining about how unfair it is that you are loosing the election.

Charlie, you and your fellow progressively worsening mentally ill Obamatons are doing a pretty bad job shilling for the now left of center democrats, who by the way control Congress.

What has babbling Nancy Pelosi done? Nothing.

As we all know, the falsely named "progressives" have a goal of crippling the US.

ONE-TERM WORST PRESIDENT E-V-E-R jimmy carter almost destroyed the US (thats why jimmy LOST) backs Barack Hussein Obama.

jimmy carter, who pals around with chavez, the late nobel peace prize winning, gun toting terrorist arafat, 49 year dictator fidel castro, is a kiss of death to Obamaton.

Gas is half price, other countries are in financial turmoil (are Obamatons blaming Bush for Icelands financial crisis, Russian stock exchange shutdown???)

Joe The Dumber Biden is Dumber than a Fifth Grader. Bidens grasp of history is pathetic.

Biden is not trusted to speak anymore. When did you last hear from Joe the Dumber?

And you guys are complaining about how unfair it is that you are loosing the election.

I was just discussing the press coverage with two lifelong democrats and Obama supporters. They were shocked by how biased newsmedia coverage of the election was this year in favor of Obama.

When journalists and newsmedia abandon their standards of objectivity, everyone suffers. When the media is biased, we don't get all of the news we need to know. Would you trust a doctor who only gave you half of a diagnosis?

Knowledge is power. The press is blatantly abusing their power. That's a bigger problem than any right/left issues.

Is this guy completely NUT! Olberman is a looney leftist lier.