What about these graphs showing the amount of positive versus negative press that Obama has gotten?
How about the incredibly long list of Palin Derangement Syndrome articles?
Then there is the New York Times’ examples of media bias.
Or, from a list I made a while back but haven’t published, there are:
Fox News admits bias says Slate.
Political Double Standard by the Common Room
Left wing commenters on the MSNBC firing of Olbermann and Matthews from the anchor position
The SF Chronicle says it is Democrat, “Democrats are on defense. And we don’t do well on defense.”
Obama’s Edge in the Coverage Race, which is on the WaPo itself by a WaPo author who says that, yes, there is more about Obama but it is not bias because
1. Obama is more interesting
2. Obama is better looking
3. All coverage necessary is done
Don’t believe me? It is from this first article from WaPo online‘s author who says that Obama has more pictures than McCain (even though O’s only go back to 2003 and McC’s go back to 1995).
Factor one: Obama is the first African American slated to win a major party’s nomination; McCain has been around a long time and ran for president before.
… the best pictures get used while being fair to both candidates.
Obama and his backgrounds are simply more photogenic. And my guess is that he smiles more, and that makes a better photo. This is not a partisan statement. Remember Ronald Reagan? Like Reagan’s staff, Obama’s campaign has a genius for putting him in places that make good photo ops.
That might explain why Broder feels there is no such thing as media bias. He works for WaPo, and everyone knows that better looking, black, new Democratic candidates OUGHT to get more coverage.