Well, at least they can admit it.  Deborah Howell, in the Washington Post actually admitted the biased Obama coverage.

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts’ views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

…

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. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

…

The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain’s 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama’s battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.

Check out the article.  It goes on and on with examples.  I do appreciate their honesty in admitting their lack of journalism ethics and professionalism in the covering campaigns.  Gotta’ admit.  It doesn’t surprise me.  Frankly, if they gave balanced coverage to both parties, THAT would surprise me.

I love how liberals so frequently cite Foxnews as the devil.  Yet, when studies are done, they always conclude that Fox is the closest to balanced coverage.   But, I guess it would appear that they are so skewed conservative because all other news outlets favor Democrats so heavily.