media election coverage

[diana holtz]

According to CNN, this election campaign has been the
longest in history at 21 months. but i think it has gone on
even longer than that.

4 years ago when George Bush was re-elected for a 2nd term,
the democrats immediatly began speculating at who would be
the next candidate in 2008. Barack Obama's name was
mentioned as well as Hillary Clinton as early as november
5th, 2004. Obama was publicly introduced and highly popular
for his speech at the 2004 DNC.

While i think the media coverage of both candidates has been
pretty unbaised, there has been, in my opinion,
significantly more news time dedicated to the democratic
party's path to nominating Barack Obama. This is not
something that the media can be blamed for. The democratic
race has just been significanly more interesting and more
dynamic of a campaign than the republicans. the democrats
have been planning for 4 years whereas the republicans
necessarily have not.

While they did not officially announce their intention to
run for presidency until after the 2006 mid term election, people were speculating long before about whether they would run. it was not the same for the republican nominee

in conclusion, i feel that throughout the campaign season, more time was devoted to the democratic path to election, but only because they were planning for much longer