It’s again time to look at Stars and Stripes’ coverage of the presidential election campaign. This follows a letter-to-the-editor questioning whether the paper had a bias toward Democrats. Coverage of the Democrats’ and Republicans’ conventions, the letter argued, favored the former.  I’d have to say I can understand what prompted Spc. Arthur Ketchum to write, but to my mind the question whether on the whole the coverage was unbalanced is too close to call.

Ketchum’s primary complaint had to do with how the paper handled the acceptance speeches by Barack Obama and John McCain.  Obama’s was reported Aug. 30 with a photo taking up almost the whole of the front page. It showed, in Ketchum’s words “a glowing crowd with him haloed by a spotlight.”  By contrast, when McCain’s acceptance speech was reported a week later, on Sept. 6, the photo of the celebration was lower on the page and the candidate was seen only in a small head shot. (These were the displays in the Middle East editions, which Ketchum, based in Iraq, saw. The Europe editions looked the same, but Pacific edition front pages were different, as will be noted below.)

Inside the paper on that day, there was evidence of what Ketchum called “muted coverage” of the GOP event.  The story of McCain’s speech was exactly matched in size by a side-by-side story about Obama’s campaign attacking McCain. On that page and the next one there was a story about Obama recruiting heavy hitters to counter the Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin; another that dwelled on the fact that Palin’s husband took trips paid for by mining companies, and an Associated Press analysis citing “dirty work” done by McCain’s “attack dogs.” Hardly a balanced presentation of what was the Republican candidate’s big day.

But a broader look at the coverage, over several days, argues for a more even-handed assessment. The Republican convention celebration photo was not at the top of the page, as the Democrats’ was, but there was a story above it that should have been of even keener interest to servicemembers: “DOD recommends no troop cuts in Iraq.” More importantly, in the five preceding days of coverage of the Republican event, there were plenty of stories about the Republicans but only two about Obama.

Virtually the reverse was true in coverage of the Democratic convention:  On the inside page Aug. 30, the Obama speech was subordinated to a larger story about the naming of Palin. And, mirroring how the Republican convention was played, in the days preceding the Obama acceptance speech, there were plenty of stories about the celebrating Democrats and only two about McCain.

In sum, front pages don’t always tell the story. Sometimes it depends which edition you’re looking at. When the Pacific edition reported on McCain’s acceptance speech Sept. 7, it had a huge photo of the beaming nominee at the top of the front page. It was every bit as imposing as the Obama photo in the Mideast edition.  In the Pacific edition’s reporting Aug. 31 of the climactic Democratic convention session, the lead story was about the Republicans — McCain’s naming of Palin (with a small photo of both Republicans) next to the large photo of Obama and the adoring crowd.  (The Pacific edition is dated differently from the Mideast and Europe editions, owing to time zones, and also has a later deadline.)

Let’s call this particular exercise a draw. There are still weeks left in the campaign, and the editors need to keep fairness and balance uppermost in their decisions. Readers will be watching carefully, not only for what appears on the front pages, but, one hopes,  for what shows up on those inside as well.