FOA (and Philadelphian) Rem Rieder, the editor of American Journalism Review, has written what I think is the definitive Media-in-the-Tank-for-Obama piece:
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that the media cast McCain in a much more negative light than it did Obama. But that hardly means the press was unfair to the Arizonan. Covering the candidates equally would be a false equivalence if one campaign were performing far better than the other one.
"Citizen Kane" no doubt got much more positive coverage than "Beverly Hills Chihuahua." My beloved Phillies got plenty of good ink when they won the World Series this year. All the years they failed to qualify for the playoffs, not so much.
The truth is, the Obama campaign was well-organized, disciplined, virtually error-free. Obama was an inspiring candidate to many, a dazzling public speaker with an inspiring storyline.
The McCain campaign, in contrast, was a train wreck, lurching from message to message. And McCain, who can be an immensely appealing figure, seemed angry and unfocused.
Read the whole thing, and then read Josh Marshall's take. Then write an angry comment. Then see that while the lliberal mainstream media isn't so liberal, liberal bloggers -- who actually are liberal -- win one for a change. Hoo-ray!