Last November, a day or two after the election, we noted that President Bush wasn't handled with the same kid gloves by the media as his opponent:

The press threw everything they had at him. It seemed to begin in early February, when the gay marriage issue--egged on by the press with the hopes of discrediting a conservative president and even his wife--took center stage thanks to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. From there it was off to the races, including trumped up charges over Bush's 9/11-themed ads, the Abu Ghraib POW scandal; the partisan 9/11 hearing; and on and on.

* * *

By the time Halloween rolled around, it felt like daily October surprises: NYTrogate last Monday (and Tuesday, and Wednesday and...); Al Jazeera pulling Osama out of a hat on Friday, 60 Minutes' oldie-but-a-goodie body armor story on Sunday, and I think the Times had some sort of other anti-Bush story on Monday.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year’s election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.

The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Update: Somewhat related thoughts, here.

Another Update: Ed Morrissey adds:

[As Thomas Lipscomb says], this wagon-circling and stonewalling goes completely against the traditional mission of the media -- to find and publish the truth. That mission got corrupted forty or so years ago, when reporters and editors decided that their mission had changed to "making the world a better place", using the value systems they took from college and j-schools. The popularity of the late, lamented Hunter S. Thompson had an influence on this, too. Instead of sticking with the 5 Ws, reporters started performing analysis and inserting opinion on news pieces, and editors allowed that to flourish.

The same reporters who started these trends now run the media organizations that perpetuate them. CBS producers and executives just believe that George Bush cheated his way in and out of the National Guard, all evidence to the contrary, and wind up being saps when obviously and demonstrably fraudulent documents surface supporting their pre-existing biases. CNN's top man just believes that Western militaries are evil and want to kill journalists and starts spouting off in foreign venues without providing an ounce of substantiation, or even having his news organization try reporting it. And when these fall apart, the impulse to find the truth has so long since atrophied in the newsrooms that the only action contemplated by the editors and executives is to circle wagons and start firing people.

Now we in the blogosphere have begun to make the news business a conversation instead of a broadcast, and the media find themselves in the uncomfortable position of accountability to their readers.

One More Update: And then check out Austin Bay, who's having a "see I told you so!" moment regarding Eason Jordan.

Oh--and fortunately, somebody still loves the mainstream media!