I guess I should write something about my new job, or my new town, since the last time I wrote I was about to start work, and here I am three weeks into it. Also, it has recently come to my attention that I have old friends (who may or may not read this blog on the rare occasion that I write something) who weren't aware that I have moved and that I am again a productive member of society.

Anyway, I just watched the first ten minutes of Live With Dan Abrams not because I particularly enjoy Dan Abrams, but because I had just finished watching Keith Olbermann (who I often do enjoy quite a bit), and was too lazy to change the channel. Abrams’ entire first secment was a prediction that failing a total blowout by Hillary Clinton in tomorrow’s twenty-four state primary, the media will spin the day as a victory for Barack Obama. His claim was based on a claim that the media doesn’t like Clinton. Abrams based this claim on a number of things that I think are obvious and irrelevant to my central point, but his argument was largely predicated on a statistic: over 80% of the media coverage of Obama has been positive, while only about 50% of Clinton’s coverage has been positive.

Let’s assume for a second that this statistic is accurate – that we all agree on what constitutes “positive” and “negative” coverage, and that the numbers are based on an accurate sampling of “the media.” For ten minutes Abrams and a few other talking heads tossed around questions of media bias, whether the pursuit of “the story” frees media outlets from focusing on the raw voter tallies. What kills me is that at no point during this piece did Abrams or any of his guests question the obvious central assumption of these numbers: the difference in positive media coverage must represent a media bias because the candidates each deserve equal positive coverage.

But Chris, how could it be that they don’t deserve equal consideration? Do you hate women? Would you allow the liberal reverse discrimination that is affirmative action to influence even the presidency? I’m not saying there isn’t a media bias; in fact, I suspect that there are all kinds of media biases. But before I accept the proposition that this statistic is the result of media hatred for Clinton or love for Obama, I’d like to see the following statistic: what percentage of statements made by the candidates (and perhaps their surrogates) have been positive? I have a sneaking suspicion that we would see a startling parallel.