" Presidents come and go at least every 8 years, but their picks for the Supremes routinely last for decades. Heller was decided by a 5-4 vote. Had Billary gotten one more appointee on the bench History the decision would've gone the other way.

When you pull that lever in November, remember you're selecting a President AND the person who'll get to choose as many as three appointees to the Supreme Court.

As far as local-level media bias, it is my humble opinion that MtStd's 'tone' is on a par with the average of its readership i.e. leaning a bit to the right. I find it a refreshing change from the flamingly liberal news outlets in the city I now live in. "

" I believe that the Lee Newspaper Group tends to lean to the conservative, rather than moderate or even slightly left. That being said, I think that The Montana Standard probably reflects the biases of the majority of its paid readership.

Barack Obama has visited Montana several times; John McCain has not, nor does it appear that he will before the coming November election. That is McCain's choice. If McCain makes an appearance, I am sure that all of this state's newspapers (belonging to Lee Newspapers Group) or otherwise, will cover the visit. This election cycle has been unique in Montana history; hence the coverage of Barack Obama and his historic run for the presidence of this great country. "

" edwalter: My pleasure. I think, however, that you seem to be implying that neither I, nor people like me, are either compassionate, or generous.

I strongly beg to differ.

As a matter of fact, I'm going to say that I will bet you that conservative people (on average) tend to be more generous with both their time and their money than liberals.

Say what you want about the evangelicals, and others like them, but they are very, very, very generous people.

Just because one is a person of faith, or has rigid core principals, doesn't mean that one doesn't have compassion, isn't generous, or doesn't want clean air or water. "

" JB, actually I did say Media Matters was a liberal site, as apposed to AIM, which is a conservative site.

And I guess being a computer engineer, you'd think I be a right leaner, but being my brothers keeper and sharing my good fortune with others less fortunate seems to make me happier than keepng all that I earn.

And I would like to echo the others who have said your change of tone is refreshing and, nice. Thank you for that change. "

" Montana Native: Poverty in the US is relative. I have lived and worked in an environment where I see what one could call poverty on a daily basis. I can't tell you how many times I, or my partners, have purchased groceries for hungry children---or removed them from horrific home situations.

However, that being said, what we have in our country is not poverty. It is more a condition of the haves, and those who have more. It isn't poverty.

We have too many safeguards in place to prevent true poverty, such as one would see in vast sections of Mexico.

I'm a bit fuzzy on your opinion that conservative Supreme Court justices value the rights of corporations over those of individuals. Give me an example. Enron wouldn't be a good example. That would be an example of a corrupt executive level/board of directors, as would be Worldcom.

I also don't understand the concern over Supreme Court Justices (conservative types) not being concerned about pollution. You've got me stumped there.

BTW: I find Laura Schlessinger incredibly annoying, patronizing, hypocritical, and condescending.

I like Ann Coulter precisely because of her bombast. "

" JB your last comment had a surprising semblance of higher thought. I'm impressed, you dealt in no absolutes and did not incur name calling. Kudos to you! I understand that everyone has fears, and mine include potential conservative supreme court justices that value the rights of corporations over individuals or who think pollution and population are not problems, they would sacrifice rights for supposed security in our great nation. This is truely a kumbaya moment where we both gain insight into the true concerns of one another. If you conceded hungry children and poverty in the US that would be nice! "

" Montana Native: I'll tell you what. Maybe this will help. I'm an agnostic. I also believe in a woman's right to choose. Additonally, I ablsolutely do not agree with the teaching of intelligent design---or anything which is similar.

And, for your information, churches like the Assembly of God, Calvary Chapel, et. al., tend to give me pause.

I'm also not a gun nut, and I don't believe we'll lose the right to bear arms if Obama is elected.

I do believe, however, that the man would do everything in his power to attempt to enact legislation which infringes upon that right if he had the chance. And, if he were to able to appoint a couple of ideologue Supreme Court Justices???? Who knows. "

" Montana Native: What point would you like me to concede? "

" I noted that there were 3 or 4 "gun issue" editorials in a row (newspaper), which were balanced out by others indicating that the Democrat nominee is not going to take the "guns away" (like the alarmists have to keep writing into the paper stating "it'll happen") - funny how nobody notices that with the 3 or 4 that only discussed how "they'd be taken" (though that would be unconstitutional) - the next editorials dealt with how the Dem would be the better "choice" for hunters, or to not be alarmed, the guns will be "safe." Which seems like things were trying to be "fair and balanced" - so many for, so many against. And, then all we hear now all over the news is "celebrity" Sarah Palin (who'd her party criticize for being the "biggest celeb in the world?") (we're going to have her comment on distinction between hockey moms and bulldogs == "lipstick" comment ram-rodded down our throats!!! I guess one would have to count the headlines to see how much coverage dems received vs the pugs - but I'd say it'd be a pretty close amount for each - I really don't think a newspaper is going to fall in with right or left (I think they maintain a little "impartiality") "

" Burton
NBS is bias no doubt, the others if any bias to a far lesser degree. I conceded the NBC point outright. I would like to see you concede a point, a sure time of end days. Man this argueing is fun. "

" edwalter: The IBD source was nothing more than an article commenting on the results of the Harvard Study. It doesn't diminish the outcome.

Find a legitimate study performed by a college or university, not a think tank Ed.

One would hardly call either UCLA or Harvard bastions of conservatism. "

" edwalter: Ed you forget to mention that Media Matters is a "Progessive" think tank.

The UCLA study started from the basis that Congress was at a rating of 50.1---just left of center, not right.

I disagree with your take one's level of education determining which way one's political beliefs lean.

It would appear to me that those who have majored in the Social Sciences/Liberal arts tend to lean much more heavily toward the left.

Those who majored in things like engineering, mathmatics, chemistry, etc., tend to lean more to the right.

BTW: I'm doing well. Thanks for asking. Even if you meant it sarcastically. "

" Montana Native: I'll give Palin a call. I'll ask her to pray for you. Your EDUCATION obviously didn't include the ability to comment on the other major networks---which you conveniently fail to mention.

From a conservative point of view, Fox balances out CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN---but who is counting, right? "

" Come on JB, an article from Investors Business Daily? Hardly and unbiased source. The report within just shows how facts can be interpreted to fit anyone's agenda, even IBD's in this case. Of course Obama got more coverage, his race for the presidiency is a bigger story than McCain's second attempt, hence more stories. And the tone I would expect to be more positive on the Democratic side, after all most of America does blame the Republicans for the shape of country, mainly I suppose, becasue they've had absolute control for 6 of the last 8 years.

For every list study you can find showing bais for liberals, I can find bias toward conservatives. And there is a new tool in use by the media which falls through all these "studies". It's called free advertising in the name of news. This started with the Swift Boat ads in the last presidential election. Those ads were shown as paid advertisments only a few times in a few states, but were shown in complete form, a thousandfold times more as part of a "news" story, on every news TV news outlet from national to local, form those percieved as liberal to conservative. That same process is happening again this year. News should not be able to show campaign ads over and over and call it news... it's free campaign advertising. "

" @butteforme

I think Mike Heard would be better suited and better qualified than either of the evils. I think it was mentioned by someone on these comments pages a couple months ago? I will right him in. So now they know, when the county election officials fix the ballots for those of us that voted wrong, they are one step closer to finding me out.

Mike Heard for President! "

" Hey JB, how'ya doing partner? I've seen both these reports before and they both need to be qualified.

The UCLA study bases it's scoring of liberal based on a comparison to lawmakers votes. The upshot here is that the report shows that the media was left of Congress at a time of a Republican majority. I would expect that result.

On the second study for AIM, this study was for "perceived" bias, as stated at the end of the aricle: "Although these results do not prove that any of the media outlets named hold a particular leaning or are biased in any way, the results do suggest that conservative and liberal individuals perceive certain news outlets to be biased against their views..."

As a counter to the AIM group, whose purpose is to report on liberal bias, on can also check out Media Matters at www.mediamatters.org which provides similar reports on the conservative bias in news.

Now, I will grant you this though... More journalists are liberal than conservative. My take on that is the more informed one becomes the more one tends to lean to the left. The higher the education, the more the lean to the left. "

" Grumpy and fed up: I don't get the Mike Heard reference??? I know I haven't seen the news lately but did I miss something?????? "

" Dont worry Burton you still have fox noise, Rush, Hannity, and lets not forget Oreilly. These noble men uphold the true fair and balanced newsmaking that is bolstered by their hubris and loudness. And dont forget that creepy skeleton Ann Coulter or Laura Schlessinger.
Between them there are the countless nude photos, pill buying maids and of course the well paid sexual harrasment victim. Who would bother watching Jim Lehrer (you need to watch this Centrist programing, you would think it is commie red) with these moral paragons of society leading the way through the darkness of the liberal media.
Two thumbs down for you, someone has to even these quacks out, and suprisingly it is probably people who take an analytical approach they learned while receiving an EDUCATION.
Your sources were just shocking, educated journalists leaning to the left, what are they thinking? Why dont you have Palin pray for the media in toungues. Mccain can also point out he is a Maverick and a POW! "

" How about more proof:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

In part, it says: Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

"The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative." "

" Yet another link to refer to: http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-new-evidence-of-liberal-media-bias-november-a/ "

" The media doesn't lean to the left? Since when? Refer to this link: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

In part: "I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

Mr. Walsh appears to know what he's talking about, Montana Native.

Of course, we conservatives usually do. "

" Mr. Walsh

Maybe you would care to contact Rupurt Murdoch so he can buy the Standard and it will be fair and balanced like fox news. The Liberal media is so overplayed, just watch faux news and youll be fine!
They helped run up the invasion of a country with no ties to 911, secret prisons, secret trials, torture, tens of thousands of dead civilians in Iraq to overthrow the secular Bathists that balanced Iran for years.
I like your bomb bomb bomb Iran nominee and his pentecostal christian VP choice who speaks in toungues and thinks the US army is Gods army. Just the tip of the iceburg but true, swallow deeply! It isnt biased, it is the truth. "

" I don't think McCain will come here. Butte will not decide any election. It hardly can handle local elections. I think that all media is really biased. I have yet to see anything about Mike Heard's candidacy for prez. Gratz on an almost decent comment, nicely stating facts and opinions, but then the illusion failed, have to work in the derogatory "grandpa". "

" That is so silly. What about the article last week titled "Montanan's Reaction to Palin", in which only the comments from biased Republicans were included? When the going gets tough in terms of legitimate questions, the Republicans always hide behind the false charge of liberal bias by the media. The journalists are just doing the job that is expected from a free press. If anything liberals can rightly point out that a strong majority of media ownership is on the conservative side. What a gift to the national debate it would be if the entrenched Republicans would actually address issues instead of whining about unfair coverage of their emotional clichs and platitudes. "

" Obama is not visiting Butte and Montana because he supports Montana or because he LOVES Montana. He is here because he needs to win over the hunters and gun owners. While winning our state does not matter in the poles, the example of such a large gun supporting state supporting Obama is priceless to his campaign.

And just a reminder:

Be educated before you vote. Look at the good and the bad of both candidates. People for generations have fought for the right to vote and honored and respected the right and tradition. Only recently is it something of a burden to people who chose to be uneducated about democracy. "

" How about a batent Democratic propaganda rant in the guise of a comedic performance creeping INTO THE SPORTS SECTION?
The MTSTD couldn't unbiasedly report a argument between two of it's reporters with both sides of the story right in front of their faces.
It's been like that forever --- but it is why I keep coming back to these pages. "

" Charging the paper with bias, and not providing an example of such, seems a little weak. Just leveling the charge seems to be sufficient to Walsh.

During the last election between Burns and Tester, I was getting the distinct impression that Conrad was getting much more favorable coverage from TMS.

Oh well, I guess it depends on your political leanings. I suppose the optimal condition is to be getting the same criticism from both sides of the spectrum. Also, since Obama has personally visited and campaigned in Butte and grandpa has not, it's understandable that he's received more coverage.

So when will McCain actually consider Butte worthy of his presence? "

" 100 percent agree. I have noticed the same and jounalism should be fair and balanced! "