Media Coverage LTE

Note how the Tribune Review dropped the IC off my letter to print that the election, "went Democrat" instead of what I wrote: democratIC. At least they published the LTE.

In response to L. Brent Bozell's piece about the network morning news shows paying more attention to liberal candidates ("Networks bow to 'white-hot' Dems," Sept. 2 and PghTrib.com), I would suggest he link the extended coverage to the polls of the country's voters.
The 2006 midterms went Democrat and a majority of voters consistently say they want a change in the White House, specifically with regard to the Iraq policy, which would involve electing a Democrat.
Polls within the Republican Party show "other" or "someone else" winning the primary, and Barack Obama recently finished third in a Republican straw poll.
The media may be lazy -- implying that John Edwards was against the war in Iraq, when he wrote an op-ed before its launch supporting it -- or reporting Hillary Clinton has more experience than Obama, when he has been in elected office longer.
And the media might prefer to cover the wives of the Republican candidates. But this is what, apparently, leads to higher ratings.
To imply that there is a bias toward the candidates is easily disproved when you look at what is covered and the inability of most of the media to offer anything of substance on the issues. They cover the popular personalities. They cover what is "white-hot."
At this stage in the campaign, those distinctions go to the Democrats.

Steve Karas
Forest Hills