There’s been a lot of talk this election cycle about bias in the blogosphere and the so-called mainstream media. And while some of it is a mixture of paranoia and sore-losing, the majority of the criticism has merit. In fact, let’s not kid each other, the mainstream media – with the exception of Fox News – consistently campaigns for the Democratic Party. This has always bothered me.

However, since this is the first time I’ve ever voted for a Democrat in a major election I have to say I love it! It feels great. If I hear or see criticism of my candidate I simply turn of Fox News or switch the channel. Done.

Politico has taken some hits from readers this cycle but stands firm in their own defense of “it ain’t us…it’s because McCain’s really is this bad.” Harris and Vandehei write:

There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.

As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

Is that an excuse? Should reporters/bloggers go out of their way to be “balanced” even when one side sucks so bad? Or does it depend on whether the individual writers package themselves as reporters or merely commentators on the passing scene?