The point is, the election <i>is</i> all about Obama and he’s going to get more coverage, regardless if it’s positive or negative. Even on Poligazette.

I don’t disagree with you about blog coverage, but blogs don’t purport to be news agencies. Professional journalists have a responsibility to report on both candidates roughly equally, not to allow the hype of a historically significant candidate to justify a tremendous bias.

I think the bias is very real, but ironically I think it may end up hurting Obama anyway. Overexposure isn’t necessarily a good thing, and people constantly seeing and hearing about his campaign but STILL not feeling that they know his qualifications or positions is only feeding into the seeds of doubt that McCain’s campaign has sown.

Instead of a single columnist from a single newspaper, why not cite researchers at the Center for Media and Public Affairs who have been studying network news for decades? That would be a better source for the good methodology and thoroughness that you’re looking for. They recently concluded that, although Obama has been getting more coverage, McCain’s has generally been more positive.

McCain’s lucky he hasn’t been getting as much press. If the media jumped on his gaffes the way the jump on Obama’s, this election wouldn’t be close.     

Then we shall see if the media really does cover the frontrunner more.

Please this has been going on since day one with this presidential campaign.  They all have their favorites, and will do their best to spin the news in their candiates favor.  Do you recall the "Rapper praises Obama" title in the NY times?

But other than that I agree that the REAL issue with media is not liberal or conservative, but lazy and "new-angle" seeking instead of "important" seeking. If they thought for a minute that hyper-homophobic drag queens would get them ratings, Brian Williams would be replaced the next day with Fred Phelps in a dress.

It’s not necessarily an unbiased situation, though. I think if the regular networks did their job better, Fox would have nothing to respond to. When Fox commentators (and radio talk show hosts) push up negative stories on Obama, they’re responding to a situation in the other press, I think Fox is being reactive. Then when something gets big enough, the rest of the press has to follow.

And I could tell you the bias is about the journalists being liberal, but really I just think mainstream journalism–like any individual— has a lot of biases, and one of them is just an angle that unintentially is biased towards liberal issues. For a long time journalism has been about  activism, so they press on touchy feely emotional issues. They focus on human issues, sweeping causes, etc. When a candidate is young and good at speeches they’re attracted to him. When the nature of the candidacy is historic, they pile more coverage on it.

Unfortunately, thats not what election coverage should be. It should above all other  priorities be motivated by giving voters the information to make a choice, which not only means good time to both candidates, but good time to all candidates who have got their names on the ballot, regardless of their odds on winning.

Simply, because its not about the news story. The news story doesn’t happen until Nov 5. Polls today influence people’s votes more than they reflect them. Voters have to make a choice, not the press.