I'm have to say I am not shocked, but disapointed in the reaction to the information provided by David Skillicorn. Once it was clear that he was saying that his results were indicating that Obama's debate language was more deceptive than McCain's, Adaora was speechless and almost immediately ended the interview. Only after a the story ended did John come back and make clear that David Skillicorbn was saying that by this study, McCain was less deceptive in his speech. But your 'unbiased' reporting had to mention that McCain may be less deceptive but it is subjective and people don't respond as well to his speaking... Whenever there is something negative about Obama it is rapidly dismissed and explained away, when the reverse happens it is talked about as if it is absolute fact. Your audience is smart enough to weigh these reports and vote as they see fit. We do not need you to 'spin' a report on spin in the campaigns for us.

Posted by S Canciello, 7:45 a.m. Monday, September 29 2008 Permalink

Well, I was sort of speechless, too. Why did Skillicorn need a computer to help him count the number of "I"s and "we"s in the debate? That's all he could offer to defend the claim that Obama was more "deceptive"?

Posted by Karin Wood, 11:51 a.m. Monday, September 29 2008 Permalink

I echo the comments of S. Canciello. I listened to the piece in my car and thought I had lost reception when I realized it was Adaoras silence at David Skillcorns conclusion that Obama use of "we" makes him more deceptive. Be a better journalist and keep your personal bias to yourself.

Posted by Walter Josiah, 8:44 a.m. Tuesday, September 30 2008 Permalink