Friendly fire: Fair coverage, or same old bias?

By Bridget Johnson

For the past few months, the news from the campaign trail has been focused on the photo finish in the Democratic Party. But now that it's just down to Barack Obama and John McCain, will the media coverage even out as it should?

Don't count on it. Obama's every move still grabs enthusiastic top billing. When McCain does make the headlines, it's usually hinged to Obama's latest move, like Obama responding to a McCain statement that didn't make page one in the first place.

We're past the point of gushing about vague promises of undefined change. We need a stark comparison of the candidates' platforms. Voters might see a clearer picture if Obama had agreed to the nine other town-hall meetings proposed by McCain, but in an ethical world the media should deliver the equitable coverage and unbiased reporting that would truly aid in making an educated ballot decision.

Bias, or fickleness and laziness?

I'm always amused when people see vast conspiracies in media coverage, as if there's some daily memo from "them" that goes out to all the mainstream media people saying what we're going to write about. As if we could be that organized!

The truth is that what so many chalk up to institutional bias is more about institutional laziness and fickleness. So many of the stories are the ones that are easy and sexy (politically speaking).