I accept that there are inherent biases in the media. I just object when they are rubbed into the nose.
For instance, check out this article from the Washington Post, on Obama the Boy Wonder of Internet Fundraising:
Obama's unprecedented online fundraising success is often depicted as a spontaneous reaction to a charismatic candidate, particularly by young, Internet-savvy supporters.
Wow, when Ron Paul was doing exactly the same thing, last year, all was dismissed as a fluke or ridiculed. Change it to read something like this: "Paul's surprising online fundraising success is often depicted as a reaction to a co-conspirator, particularly by young internet-savvy idiot savants who live in their parents' basements." Same phenomenon, praise for one guy, derision for the other. Yay, journalistic integrity.
But there's more. Check this out:
Ads for Obama pop up on political Web sites, such as the left-leaning blog Daily Kos, and on more general ones, such as those of newspapers.
Obama has targeted unlikely sites, such as the conservative Washington Times, where an ad for the candidate appeared yesterday on the same page as a story about an economic speech he gave that morning.
So, the Kos is "left-leaning"? Are you kidding me? Of course the Washington Times is conservative, so if honesty is possible there, why the hedge on Kos?
I expect this, and know it's always there. Normally it's left under the surface and it irritates me far less. I suppose I should be grateful that the junior copy editor is in charge now and then and fails to cover up the obvious tells.