A lot of fuss has been made by both sides about newspapers and the media in general being biased and having to show both sides of the story, which has led to a lot of sloppy, half-assed reporting about the various controversies out there. The media has often failed to give any intelligent analysis, instead merely parroting whatever talking points the various campaigns have to offer and not even bothering to include much "investigating" in their investigative journalism. Odd, that, huh? I guess it's easier to be a coward and just repeat talking points than it is to actually look into the story, analyze the results of your investigation, and report on the outcome.
(I also wonder if the wonderful world of "blogs" and 24/7 news and everything up-to-the-minute have actually ended up hurting us in some ways - there's this constant push to be the first source for any story, and I wonder if they don't often sacrifice the quality of the content for speed. I suspect that they do, on a regular basis, and it's disappointing.)
So the question I have is this - are the kid gloves now off? If they've chosen sides, shown where their bias lies, can they finally just put out actual stories looking into things and accusing one of both candidates of wrong-doing or mistakes or whatever without fear of being branded as (more) biased? If so, the coming week will be an interesting and tumultuous one, I think - I've already seen a bunch of somewhat damning articles just this morning on the Bush administration, and I wonder if they're all coming out now because of that whole "bias" fear.
As always, two good sources: