Was The Media Biased Or Was Obama Simply A Better Story Than McCain?

We’ve heard so much about so-called mainstream media bias in the campaign; this is a bias that some believe proved to be anti-John McCain and pro-Barack Obama. But, was there really a bias in the sense that the media was cheerleading for Obama as some on the conservative wing of the political spectrum wholeheartedly believe? I have long contended that people in the media are human beings – in spite of how so many like to push the illusion that the media are simply fair-minded people with a robotic-like sense of right and wrong when it comes to coverage of candidates in political races. Frankly, human nature is the reason that perhaps Barack Obama did get a little more attention from the press during the election coverage. What is a better story: (At the risk of being harsh) Another old white guy being named president of the United States of America, or the first black man being named president of the United States of America? Sure, John McCain had a great story with his war record, but other than that Obama was clearly a more intriguing figure to the media and to the public. Besides, not all the coverage of Obama was a love affair between him and the press. We should all remember that he was pounded throughout the campaign by negative coverage from stories about Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Bill Ayers and others. This was scrutiny McCain did not have to deal with for his associations with G. Gordon Liddy, Charles Keating, Rod Parsley and John Hagee. McCain mostly got a free pass on this from the mainstream media, the tabloids, the Internet bloggers and so many others (while Obama was subjected to all kinds of scrutiny for his associations). So, Obama may have gotten more press coverage, but it was hardly all good (let’s be up front and honest about that). Obama, in the simplest of terms, was a more compelling story (positively and negatively).