Amendment: The President Elect will provide records of eligibility prior to taking office.

[Peikko 1,575]

Trying to prove media bias by the absence of stories on specific issues? That's like trying to prove that people believe one thing or another by an absence of posting in a specific thread.

It might be that news of anti-war protesters is being suppressed by the media for political reasons, but you need a little more than its absence in the news as proof that this is so. If you have proof that there are a series of events that have not reached the news that would normally have been headline or close to it, then you have some kind of a case but back stories come and go and for far more reasons than whether or not it might 'inconvenience' the incumbent president.

I would have thought the first thing you would have to consider is nature of the current conflicts and whether or not they are similar to the nature of the conflicts that took place during the Bush era. One huge difference is that recent conflicts undertaken by the US government have all been multilateral and backed up by UN resolutions and asked for or approved of by other major players in the regions that the conflicts are taking place and consider this, when Bush attacked Iraq with the backing of the UK but without UN sanction, what happened in the UK under a Labour leadership? There were gargantuan protests that were played out all over the media, hundreds of thousands of protesters of all ages came out against the left wing government and it was front page, middle page and back story news. What has happened in the UK under a Conservative government this time around? How huge have the protests been? Or, is the liberal media in the UK protecting the Conservative government from criticism by suppressing stories of anti-war protest?

Yes, I am well aware that the UK is NOT the US and the media works differently, but in terms of how the news stories over Libya are being portrayed they are similar on both sides of the pond. The biggest difference between the two as I see it is that the UK media is 100% more outward looking than the US media. The UK media consumer is used to reading front page news stories from around the world every day that cover a wide variety of stories, not just the shock and awe events. TV news has a world news segment at the beginning of each broadcast whereas in the US tv news rarely covers stories from around the world and it's only ever the lead story if it's a mega tragedy like the earthquake in Japan, and even then that story is only covered for the first 24 hours, after that? It may as well have never happened.

Beyond that, I"m not sure why there is a discussion as to media bias in a thread pertaining to whether or not Obama really is president. Rather a bizarre tangent.