David Broder wrote a book, the title of which I don't remember, on "fairness" in the press. He used McCarthy as an example.

Many people including many in the media regarded McCarthy and his witch-hunt as pure nonsense. However, being afraid of him and being branded as "communist", they had guidelines which saw to it that there were at least two stories favorable to McCarthy for every story unfavorable.

In reality, fair reporting would have had no stories favorable and all unfavorable. But the press was frightened.

I think we see the same thing now. Much reporting on Palin, for instance, painted her candidacy in a favorable light when in reality she was a joke, especially coming from McCain who was calling Obama inexperienced. Surprisingly, it was Conservatives who felt the most comfortable publically recognizing an incompetent hick when they nominated one. George Will comes to mind.

The Republican claim that she had foreign power expertise based upon Alaska's proximity to Russia was treated as if there might be a grain of truth in it. That should have been a Leno-Letterman line and left to die. But in the interest of "fairness" no one I saw even smirked when reporting it.

So as things are, virtually everything can get some favorable press.

Arf