I am not a regular reader of the Post, so it would be unfair of me to comment too comprehensively. But Howell might consider that the reason Obama received more favorable coverage was that he was a far better candidate who ran a more positive campaign. The voters seemed to think so. On the other hand, she does point out some areas where Obama perhas deserved tougher coverage.

Excellent report from the Washington Post's Ombudsman about her own newspaper's tendency to publish a large number of horse-race stories on the elections (twice as many as issue stories), and to favor Obama versus Mc.Cain in their op-ed section. This report is based on extensive factual evidence, and seems quite fair and in-depth, with helpful context on this important issue.

Lots of info and a great overview of WaPo race coverage. Graphics would have helped. Like the Project for Excellence in Journalism study, this mostly presents the raw data and does not try very hard to correlate it to good journalistic policy. I'm not sure if that is fitting from an ombudsman, but this a great story regardless.

very good professional initiative on the post's part. mentions earlier self-correction of balance, and points out their polling on issues, while focusing on their count of types of stories to demonstrate and not excuse their imbalance. this is a regular feature of the post and is useful modeling for other sources

Any honest reflection by any media outlet on its own coverage of a topic is worth the read. The statistics were interesting, though I would have liked to have read them in a chart for easier comparison. Ombudsman Howell explains some of the reasons for the tilt well, yet also leaves some other assumptions hanging in the air. This piece reads as the beginning of an analysis because it seems a bit incomplete. Still, it provides a lot of food for thought about the media's role.

A thorough review of Washington Post campaign coverage from November 2007 to November 2008, including statistical and content analyses of news reports, opinion pieces, and photographs. See Quotes tabs for key findings.

This story and its thesis are a concern. One example is it lists Obama issues not covered, but fails to list McCain issues not covered or poorly covered. Another red herring is the supposed issue in lack of coverage of Joe Biden. The difference can be explained in part that Biden was a known quantity and Palin was completely unknown to most.

I have known several ombuds, including Geneva Overholser, who used to hold this position at The Washington Post, and they take their work seriously. The two main issues here concern the favorable coverage of Obama who also had more stories and the lack of substantive coverage, with most just citing polls or comments of one campaign against another. The ombuds report ensures continuous improvement, elevating the Post over the New York Times as the most trustworthy news source.

The ombudsman evaluation of fairness seems simple-minded. The underlying assumption is that all candidates are equally good, so they should all receive equal treatment in quantity and degree of favor. The candidate saying the earth is flat should be adored as much as the candidate saying the earth is spherical. Hamilton's defense of horserace stories is self praise for bad journalism. And where were the issue stories for McKinney, Barr, and Nader?

I think this piece misses good journalism by a wide mark. The one revelatory comment about polls is good.

A good article overall with statistics, names and discussed who and where. It did point out the absolute unfairness with which Gov. Palin was treated. It failed to mention anything about the impact of campaign finances on coverage. The writer also did brush the topic of the lack of critical coverage or investigative coverage of Obama.

A so-so read. Does not get into the nitty gritty of foreign policy coverage, where the Post takes a strong neocon stance that was right in keeping with McCain's posture.

The article is only a fair critique of the Washington Post’s biased coverage of the presidential campaign. While the ombudsman points out the disparity in positive OPED 's favoring Obama over McCain, she misses a critical point in her evaluation. A more comprehensive evaluation could have categorized the news articles and photo layouts by issue and whether or not they are favorable, balanced or critical to one candidate versus the other.

The article was based on extensive research and presented the information objectively. Further questions & analysis could have been presented as to why the coverage tilted towards Obama.