By Bob Morgan, Jr.

As the election draws a bit closer, the subject of press coverage by the national media draws increasing scrutiny.

One case in point, of course, is Barack Obama's long awaited world tour, in which he visited Iraq, Afghanistan, as well as Europe, making a well-received speech in Berlin. The trip was covered with great fanfare by the three broadcast news networks and, remarkably, each of the three evening anchors joined the senator for the trip. Cable news coverage of the trip was intense as well. In contrast, there was quite limited coverage of a visit by John McCain to Iraq in March.

In the wake of Senator Obama's trip, he got a bumpup in the polls in the area of 5 points, which might or might not be temporary. The McCain campaign responded to the disparity in coverage with a video called "Obama Love" that featured a mélange of adulatory quotations about Senator Obama from Chris Mathews and other television personages to the tune of Frankie Valli's "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You". Although susceptible to characterization as sour grapes, the video was widely viewed on the internet.

Of course, the disparity in attitude toward the candidates is not lost on the public. In a recent Rasmussen poll, 49 percent of respondents believe that reporters are trying to help Mr. Obama win, 14 percent think that they are trying to help Mr. McCain win, and just 24 percent are of the view that most reporters are unbiased. Jay Leno fueled the fire on his show this week with an amusing clip of wide-eyed bogus reporters singing "Obama Mia" in honor of the candidate.

The seeming one-sided nature of coverage is not confined to the presidential race. For example, the national media has largely squelched a widely circulated internet rumor about a leading Democrat's personal life (I won't go into greater detail), while not being hesitant to investigate and report, for example, about Republican Congressman Vito Fossella's out of wedlock child, revelations which caused Mr. Fossella not to seek reelection. (Yes, the media was all over the Eliot Spitzer story, but that may have been a case of a man with no friends in either party.)

It may be that "objective" journalism of the style of 50 years ago is a thing of the past. For one thing, people frequently get hard news quickly on the internet or short news broadcasts, and then look to other media sources for explanation and analysis. Indeed, the Associated Press has announced that its political reporting will now be "accountability journalism," which in theory cuts through empty promises made by politicians but also, in the hands of ideologically motivated reporters, is susceptible to manipulation.

Still, however, a large number of readers and viewers expect that reporters in mainstream outlets (as opposed to journals of opinion) not be in the tank for one candidate or another, that negative as well as positive stories be reported about a media-favored candidate and that undue "hype" be avoided. As the media industry reinvents itself in the wake of the rise of the internet, outlets that recognize that there are two sides to most stories and that readers prefer a degree of balance in reporting are likely to be at a competitive advantage over those that do not.