I’m really starting to think that “media bias” claims are really code for “OMG YOU WERE MEAN TO MY CANDIDATE IN A WAY I CAN’T REFUTE!” While yes, you can certainly tell who the author here will be voting for, whining about it really does nothing to refute the points made above.

And frankly, I can’t blame anyone who presumably cares about science (as one would assume at Discover Magazine) for taking potshots at a man who is sucking up to the anti-science religious arm of the Republican party as much as McCain is. I’m sure that, in general, science would love to stay away from politics, but there’s a lot riding on this race that concerns the scientific community – funding, energy policy, education, etc. It just might be that there is some kind of clear line that can be drawn on who has a better science policy, and if that is the case, expecting some kind of equality in the criticism would be basically expecting someone to lie to make you feel better.

Sometimes, both sides aren’t equal on an issue. If they were, they wouldn’t be disagreeing!

And I’m kind of surprised Ms. Lafsky didn’t decide to bring the hammer down on McCain’s extremely lame answer about stem cells, but I guess that would have been a little too easy.

“Secondly, Palin, in her two years as governor of Alaska, has drastically reduced the number and expense of earmark requests for her State. She sits in the largest State in the nation, geographically, yet asked for the least per square mile for insfrastructure earmarks.”

Maybe instead of earmark dollar per square mile (wtf) you should use earmark dollar per citizen as your metric, which, frankly, makes a heck of a lot more sense. In that regard she has requested more per person that any other state in the US. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154532_webpalin02m.html)

But anyway, that discussion is off topic. Fact is, this article is “snarky” (obviously) because Wired is a science magazine and McCain holds many views that can be regarded as anti-scientific, Not to mention electing a creationist as VP candidate.

Whatever their bias is, they have to back it up with something. Let’s try to focus on whether or not what a media publication prints is the TRUTH or not. Everything else will fall into place. The best argument against this article’s judgment against McCain is “A war injury keeps him off the internet” Everything else is a complaint that McCain is being made fun of.

Come ON! Is that really the best you can do?

That said, the above post primarily showed the repeated hypocracy of McCain, illustrating the contrast between his history and actions and the “statement” he wrote. That is an effective way of questioning the sincerity of the statement, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

All I see is people whining about how unfair it is to call a spade a spade.

“She sits in the largest State in the nation, geographically, yet asked for the least per square mile for insfrastructure earmarks.”

Lol, what a ridiculous metric. I would think Alaska has always asked for the least per square mile for obvious reasons that have nothing to do with Palin.

There clearly isn’t anything out there that is bias free (probably never was). At one point (in my early days) I would have thought a science magazine could avoid partisan politics- but I think I was a little naive!

Keep it up – our politicians need to be kept under the microscope (a tool invented for science, which helps us to learn more about the truth)

However, if McCain is in fact more disabled than Stephen Hawking, I’d wonder if he is able to really lead this country?