It is standard operating procedure for the corporate media to bend over backwards to tighten the presidential race -- closer races keep more media attention -- to keep one candidate from getting an advantage, or simply succumb to pressure from very aggressive campaign tactics. I noticed a piece of bias in a New York Times on Saturday: "McCain Lauds and Attacks Obama in Same Day" By Elisabeth Bumiller. The teaser read, "As the polls have shown Barack Obama gaining ground, John McCain has been veering from message to message."
Obama leads in all national polls, in some cases by more than 10 points, but the NY Times editor uses the term "gaining ground," as if Obama has been far behind and is perhaps catching up on McCain; to say "forging ahead" or "taking the lead," would be far more accurate.
But that is nothing compared to the bias Chris Bowers documents about the Washington Post, where, according to its editors, a 2.2 percent McCain lead is greater than a 13.8 percent Obama lead.
In the Post's system, any state where McCain leads, no matter his margin, is defined as "leaning Republican." States where Obama leads by 7.3 percent-13.8 percent are defined as "battleground states," while states where McCain leads by 2.2 percent-6.8 percent are defined as "leaning Republican." Bowers asks: "Does the uneven math in this strike anyone as problematic? The Washington Post claims that a 2.2 percent lead for McCain is larger than a 13.8 percent lead for Obama. That is objectively wrong and quantifiably unfair. This is as blatantly imbalanced as election reporting can possibly get."
In Bowers' related post, he also documents how big media sites can't admit what is patently obvious to even Republican poll watchers right now: Obama is over 270 outside the margin of error. Says Bowers, "Maybe they are afraid of being accused of pro-Obama bias (probably). Maybe they are just biased toward McCain (possibly). Maybe they just suck at electoral forecasting (definitely). Maybe they are invested in a close campaign (absolutely)."