Politico's Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris take readers through political journalists' biases (the ones that "matter so much more" than "ideological bias") and how they, and some of the particulars of this campaign, have redounded mostly to Obama's benefit.
One example:
Obama has benefited from his ability to minimize internal drama and maximize secrecy — and thus to starve feed the press’ bias for palace intrigue. In this sense, his campaign bears resemblance to the two run by George W. Bush.
There's also "the bias in favor of momentum" ("a candidate who is perceived to be doing well tends to get even more positive coverage") which is countered by "the bias against boredom" (a need to keep things exciting/competitive).
And then there's "the bend-over-backward bias" (trying "so hard to avoid accusations of favoritism that it clouds critical judgment") as demonstrated by "stories suggesting Palin held her own or even won her debate against Joe Biden when it seemed obvious she was simply invoking whatever talking points she had at hand, hanging on for dear life." (Something Campaign Desk addressed at the time).
Your suggestion that most journalists are centralists and see both sides of the story doesn't even come close to being legit this year.
In years passed journalists were mostly liberal but tried to come across as neutral. But this election year journalists have just decided we are leftists and we don't care about reporting on important details.
Need an example? Say for instance the fact that Obama right now couldn't even get a top security clearance because of all of his radical affiliations, if he were trying to get a job with the CIA. Yet very little has been brought up about his radical views in the media and he is trying to become the President of the USA. Although it does seem very important to report on the possibility of Sarah Palin getting free clothes.
So before you try to point out that there has been a little favoritism in the media. Come completely clean and just say we are no longer journalists, we are Liberals first!
When all the staff over at Slate is voting Obama (with one exception) can we really expect the organization as a whole to be neutral not report from its ideological bent? When Pew came out with its findings that 70% of John and Jane Q public though that the media favors Obama over McCain, can we still say there is no problem with reporters putting ideology over their work? When campaign contributions from employees of media organizations favor Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 15-1 as reported by MSNBC, can we still say there is no problem with reporters putting ideology over their work? When the LA Times offers four separate reasons for not releasing a tape of Obama, with toady Bill Ayers right at his side, toasting PLO terrorist Rashid Khalidi, when it jumped on the opportunity to release confidential and private tapes of Governor Schwarzenager on 06, can we still say there is no problem with reporters putting ideology over their work?
I call shenanigans on Politico’s horseshit of an excuse.
Nothing pleases me more than to see the fruits of your labors yield a bountiful harvest of massive media layoffs. Hope you enjoy going to Borders and Starbuck’s guys, cause you are going to have to work there real soon.