I am listening and I wanted to pass along a little thought i had that needs to be said. McCain says "If we had listened to Obama we wouldn't have the surge". I say "If we had listened to Obama we wouldn't be in Iraq anyway"

Sent by Linda Holt | 2:25 PM ET | 07-23-2008

i wonder if talk of the nation is trying to make up for this "perceieved" media bias by only interviewing republican talking heads?

Sent by arthur gough | 2:32 PM ET | 07-23-2008

Why does the medeia have an obligation to provide equal coverage to the candidates? I see more coverage of Amy Winehouse than Boston Symphony conductor James Levine in the local media. Isn't it just a competition for eyes and ears?

Sent by Robert Dawson | 2:34 PM ET | 07-23-2008

Comment from a whiner: I like McCain, but the should be careful accusing as he did today that Obama is trying to trade a victory in Iraq for a win in the election. McCain may be opening the party up the response: "that's OK, Bush started the war to win an election, to begin with".

Sent by charlie affel | 2:36 PM ET | 07-23-2008

1. It's great you have Republican Rep. Shays on for 5 or 10 minutes - how about a Democrat?

2. It's great you have "Republican strategist" Vin Weber on for 15 or 20 minutes - how about a Democrat?

Once again, thanks to a CALLER for pointing out the FACTS about the media's close relationship with McCain. But Neal, why did you say: "Some of those details may be elusive."? Very diplomatic way to call your caller a liar - what "details" are you questioning? Are you so afraid of being called pro-Obama (or the worst slur of all, "liberal") that you have to question anything that doesn't conform to the GOP's whining?

God forbid you should mention CBS' editing of McCain's interview to make it less embarassing to him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIAsS9VXiM

Sent by Brian in Tallahassee | 2:37 PM ET | 07-23-2008

Regarding the media coverage bias in favor of Obama, I think its important to remember we are dealing with organizations who also track Britney Spears every move.

For them it's about headlines, money and drama. My suggestion is, if McCain wants more coverage, become more interesting or dramatic.

At least in my opinion, most (if not all) media organizations are very easy to figure out, they must make money therefore you and or what your doing must be interesting enough to make them money, that's it!

Sent by David, Boise, Id. | 2:48 PM ET | 07-23-2008

You just presented a topic on Obama's media coverage through two republicans and one reporter. This is fair? No one representing Obama's perspective. After 25 years of loyal listening and support for all public broadcasting media, I have noticed such a bias toward conservative view points over the last months that I find myself completely frustrated with NPR's lack of what used to be objective presentation of the issues. I can only assume this is the fallout from Tommlinson and the other idealogically driven appointments. I am saddened beyond description by the co-opting of public broadcasting. I plead with each individual at NPR who knows what real, thorough and fair journalism is to stand up for your responsibility to provide this to a nation badly in need of objective information.

Sent by Jeff Mapes | 2:51 PM ET | 07-23-2008

We hope the political junkie will give equal time next week to the Disability rights forum taking place this Saturday in Coumbus OH. McCain is supposed to be there via satallite while Obama is sending Harkin. This Saturday is the 18th anniversary of the ADA.

Sent by jm fay | 3:09 PM ET | 07-23-2008

It was sad on today's show to hear one commentator continually say, "but I think the American people eventually sort it out". First off, approximately 50% of the American people don't even bother to vote. And I think the majority of the remainder are led by the nose following exactly what the media directs them to see, feel and think. I've intuitively believed this for a long time, and recently ran across the following that explained my intuition in rather tangible terms. Were you possibly an early supporter of Ron Paul? Did you ever wonder with all the buzz, how he just kind of vanished off the map? Support Hillary? Wonder how Obama seemed to pulled ahead in the end? Watch this, see what conclusions you come draw. I know for a fact the mainstream media will NEVER want you to watch this, it may actually make you think for yourself! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9nOIusbDwI

Sent by John George | 3:18 PM ET | 07-23-2008

If there is a romance between the media and Obama I have not seen it. The only coverage that Obama has gotten from most of the media has been negative so if that is what people want to believe is coverage I am sure Mr. Obama wouldn't mind doing without it.

Sent by Patricia Simpson | 3:38 PM ET | 07-23-2008

Neal and Ken,

I appreciated your show but was disappointed that you failed to point out that more media coverage does not equal POSITIVE coverage. A review of the media stories will show that most stories regarding Senator Obama have been NEGATIVE. From Rev. Wright to flag pins to his lack of support from women, uneducated men, to Rev. Jackson. etc.
Whereas Senator McCain gets over 90% POSTIVIE coverage. His mistakes are quickly defended by the media (ex. his lack of geography knowledge), he continues to be called "the Maverick" although his current policies are completely party line Republican. He changed his views on torture, the environment, taxes, pretty much every principle that he has ever stood for. Yet the press barely brings up these issues, instead the media spends 2 weeks beating down on Obama for changing his mind on FISA and campaign finance.

More coverage does not equal positive coverage. I do hope that Senator McCain gets his wish and receives more media scrutiny. Similar to his wish for Sen. Obama to visit Iraq, he will soon wish that he had kept his mouth shut.

Sent by Sarah | 7:33 PM ET | 07-23-2008

With all due respect, I do not find Ken Rudin's observations or comments credible at all anymore and haven't for some time now. It all started early on in this primary! He is SO CLEARLY biased towards Barack Obama - how can he take himself seriously? Or is this simply a great big BLIND SPOT? Tonight when he said that he thought there was balanced media coverage for both McCain and Obama - it was laughable! Absolutely outrageously laughable! Was he actually serious because I can't tell anymore if he is trying to be a comedienne or a serious political pundit? It's very bothersome to listen to him!

Sent by CJ | 12:44 AM ET | 07-24-2008

Regarding the conversation about Obama receiving more press coverage. I disagree with your analysis and here is why. You not once mentioned the many "private" fundraising events being held by President Bush on McCains' behalf. I was being nice when I used the word "private" I think perhaps "secret" is a much better fit. The press are not invited to these "secret" fundraisers but yet I don't hear any reporters shouting the alarm. I have enjoyed your show in the past but this particular show put me on notice that you like all other news agencies have their bottom line as the first priority instead of the reporting of the unbiased facts. I am disappointed. Call me old fashion but I like to listen to the facts then make up my own mind. I don't want a greedy suit telling me what to believe.

Sent by Rose A Seaborn | 3:11 PM ET | 07-24-2008