See... they CAN be impartial...

It seems that following Obama's infomercial on Wednesday, which drew and held even more viewers than the conclusion of the World Series that followed, media forces have been talking nonstop about the effects this will have on the campaign. They love him or they hate him, it was a great move or a cocky undertaking. But amidst this, I found at least one traditionally liberal news source that was able to run a mostly unbiased article on the economic policies of our two major candidates.

The LA Times ran a piece by Ralph Vartabedian this morning, which headlines on their campaign page, titled "McCain, Obama economic policies appear to be politics as usual." In the article, he compares McCain's economic plan to the tactics used in the Reagan administration, and Obama's policy as similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt, claiming that neither candidate is suggesting any dramatic change from past presidencies. Vartabedian claims that neither candidates' plan will be very effective and that both tend to be short-sighted, focusing on the immediate economic crisis and "dodging the most severe long-term economic problems facing the nation." He also suggests that, as with every election, the biggest problems are those that neither campaign is talking about--the social security deficit and medicare deficit as examples.

Though it's a long article, he has some good comments from economic researchers on both sides of the aisle and makes a very appropriate and educated conclusion-- "You have to vote on the basis of instinct, because neither candidate is saying very much."

Now, while he doesn't promote either candidates' plans, I use the term "mostly unbiased" because I wonder, if you are against both options, are you not still biased toward something else? So is it even possible for a media source to be completely unbiased? Is there a difference between not being in support of anything and being against everything? In my opinion, no...but I am not done searching.