The evidence of media cheerleading for Obama is extensive. Here's the WashPost media analyst Howard Kurtz back in July 2007:
HOWARD KURTZ, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Barack Obama had been getting the most glorious press coverage perhaps in the history of the republic. I mean, the press just acted like this guy walked on water.Here's Kurtz again in December 2007 quoting Newsweek's Howard Fineman:
Newsweek's Howard Fineman says Obama's coverage is the buzz of the presidential campaign. "While they don't say so publicly because it's risky to complain, a lot of operatives from other campaigns say he's getting a free ride, that people aren't tough enough on Obama," Fineman says. "There may be something to that. He's the new guy, an interesting guy, a pathbreaker and trendsetter perhaps."A couple weeks before the election, the WashPost reported this shocker: "Study: Coverage of McCain much more negative than that of Obama"
Media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama, a new study says.Now, by way of Ace of Spades, here's Rex Murphy of the National Post suggesting that the media take a hard look at the abrogation of duty that elevated Obama: "The media's love affair with a disastrous President"
As the bad economic news continues to emanate from the United States — with a double-dip recession now all but certain — a reckoning is overdue. American journalism will have to look back at the period starting with Barrack Obama’s rise, his assumption of the presidency and his conduct in it to the present, and ask itself how it came to cast aside so many of its vital functions. In the main, the establishment American media abandoned its critical faculties during the Obama campaign — and it hasn’t reclaimed them since.It's not too late to amend your ways, mainstream media. Just play fair, for once.