What happened to the concept of unbiased reporting??

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: S
Date: Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Subject: Press Favored Obama Throughout Campaign


Thought you would like the validation...

 

 

Sent to you by S via Google Reader:

 

 

Press Favored Obama Throughout Campaign

via Slashdot by ScuttleMonkey on 11/10/08

narcberry writes "After complaints of one-sided reporting, the Washington Post checked their own articles and agreed. Obama was clearly favored, throughout his campaign, in terms of more favorable articles, less criticism, better page real-estate, more pictures, and total disregard for problems such as his drug use. 'Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics. The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that. McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, three months before Obama won his. From June 4 to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.'"

I'm surprised the media wasn't aware of their obvious bias.  NPR (National Public Radio), typically a very informative radio station, probably reported on Obama twice as much as they did on McCain, and what was reported about McCain was typically negative.  Yet, I don't think they ever said a bad word about Obama.  Let's see, who chooses the president: the people as a whole, or the wagging tongues of our reporters???  

My question, though, is why do let ourselves fall for it?