Palin Vol. 2

My apologies for being slightly late with a response to my 1st post. I just now noticed that comments had been posted. To begin, I quote the survey not as proof, but rather as anecdotal evidence that in the minds of those who matter most- the public- the media is biased. I agree, the public may not be correct in their judgment. Second, my comparison of the four cases is not built on the fact the Palin case is the least consequential. Even if all the cases are of equal objective misdeed and import, I still believe the Palin case has been unfairly targeted in the amount of journalistic effort it has received. The Rezko, Ayers, and Palin cases are similar in that all are unresolved to some degree. We do not know if Palin is guilty, nor do we know the extent of Obama’s involvement with those two figures. The role of the press is to fill this void. The volume of the stories suggest more of a zeal to fill this void in the case of Palin in contrast to the cases of Obama. When is the last time an investigative reporter uncovered something new about Rezko? Is the story really that dead? This is also true with regards to Edwards: we know that he is guilty. Where was the speculation on the part of the press? Their efforts in investigating him appear to have been utterly lackadaisical. In short, even if all are of equal importance, why does the press seem to devoting more resources to the Palin case then it is/did in the other three?
Finally, the point about time-compression is a good one. My counter is that if it was the need for information alone that is motivating the feeding frenzy of the press, why has there not been an equal amount of positive coverage of Palin? She must have some good traits about her…