Lots of newspapers openly admitted the fact that they were for Obama, Daihashi, although you seem to think they did not. The ones who endorsed him editorially--a little over half the nation's big metropolitan dailies--were fairly open about that, and the big news weeklies like Time and Newsweek and USNews talked about it too. You'd probably enjoy reading the Columbia Journalism Review sometime. They have talked a lot about the bias, too, and done several case study examples.

There's no doubt in my mind media coverage was biased in his favor. He was someone anyone who likes to watch politics couldn't not be interested in because A, he was racially diverse. B. He was an talented orator. Their bias got stronger after that race speech he gave. C. He is young, and D., He was so unflappable. Just calm, straight, focused and steady. It was because he was so different from the normal old white-guy politician, I think, in the way he looked and sounded. Made us old white guys look uninteresting in comparison. Anyone who's been watching politics a while has seen a good bit of McCain, so he was not as unique seeming. Notice, though, that Palin got a lot of coverage and attention, too, for her differentness.

Anyone else notice that now that Obama's elected, he's getting more media attention than any new president-elect in history? I'm convinced he is--and I expect his administration will be watched more closely than any since JFK