Where to start? Guns? Swiss gun ownership is through the roof compared to almost any other country (they really *do* have a well armed militia.) Tax rates? Monaco's income tax is 0%. Even ignoring the smaller european countires, the overall level of taxation is *broadly* similar between the US and Western European countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world). Yet all of Europe provides free, high quality health care. Highly subsidised (or free) access to leading universities as part of the taxation system. Why is it, do you think, the european nations with 'high' taxes (Nordic countries, Switzerland as prime examples) regularly top the standard of living tables? As for free speech / free press - the European convention on human rights provides for free speech and this has been upheld time after time. Certain countries have a specific ban on Nazi symbology, but given the circumstances who can blame them? Consider the position of the US (34th) in relation to 19 out of the top 20 *European* countries (the other being New Zealdnd) which top the World Press Freedom indicies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index) The biggest problem in your ill informed comments is that you seem (in a Sarah Palinesque fashion) to assume Europe is a country, not dozens of nations.

The basic business model of a newspaper (and a commercial TV channel) is to sell advertising space. Once you fix that firmly in your mind things make a lot more sense.

Newspapers require journalists to write stories that will make people buy papers. Sometimes they might be some public good (Watergate). Often times it will be utter drivel (almost anything about Britney Spears). As long as the stories fit the business model (serious investigative reporting, celebrity trash and anything inbetween) then it's all good.

It gives the 4th estate too much credit to think they are particulary political. Fox hammer the conservative message because their business model is to attract conservative politics lovers/haters to Fox. Their perceived politics is just part of the business plan.

Obama is popular - therefore newsworthy - so stories about him will sell.

McCain is less popular and in many respects less newsworthy (his politics and personal life are well known now, and wealthy old white male politicians aren't scarce on the ground) so stories are not going to sell as many papers.

Long story short - media don't exist to help voters make informed choices; they exist to make money. That ambitious politicians and their campaign teams use this to their advantage should also not be a surprise.