Washington Post admits Obama bias

Now that the election is over the Deborah Howell, the Washington Post Ombudsman, admits that the Post's election coverage was biased toward Obama.

Howell reports readers complained consistently criticized the Post's "lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama." She conducted a survey of the Post's election coverage since November 11, 2007 on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds, horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants, and photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.

The survey, which conveniently ended on Election Day, found that the readers' criticisms are "right on both counts:"

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement.

[. . .]

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors -- like most of the national news media -- found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic.

Howell also admits, now that it is too late to make a difference, that Obama and Biden should have been scrutinized more:

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

[. . .]

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

It doesn't make me feel any better that the Post admits its election coverage was biased toward Obama. Like Bill Ayers, the Post remains unrepentant about the fact the coverage was biased. I'm sure we can look forward to a continued biased coverage of President-elect Obama.

Comments

[Wes]

"I'm sure we can look forward to a continued biased coverage of President-elect Obama."

Who would read the Post now? The paper to read is the conservative Washington Times. The're the ones who'll do the real investigative reporting... just as they did during the Clinton Era.