Complaints about a liberal media bias aren’t a new phenomenon. Right-wing talk show hosts and conservatives have long lamented that the major news outlets have a leftward slant and that it took an upstart Fox News to finally provide us with The Truth.

This election cycle is no different. Republicans and Fox News anchors have complained that the coverage of the candidates has been unfair. First, they were angry that the Clinton-Obama battle was being covered much more than John McCain was, and the claim continued after Obama shored up the Democratic nomination. Now they’re calling Obama the ‘Media Darling’, citing, for example, the journalistic frenzy to cover the Obama World Tour – leaving McCain in a relative press limbo.

In terms of sheer hours of coverage, it does seem likely that Obama has had more screen time than Mccain, and I think there are several reasons for this.

First, he’s different from any candidate this nation has ever had, and many journalists simply want to cover his historic campaign. This was especially true during the primary season, when it was clear that, regardless of the winner, a barrier would be broken and history made. Contrast this to both McCain and the Republican primary season, neither of which were highly controversial, heated, or especially unique. There wasn’t a standout ’superstar’ on the Republican roster the way that there was on the Democratic side.

Second, after eight years of the Bush administration, we’re pretty familiar with the platform and with post-9/11 Republican talking points. We know that the Republican candidate will reliably talk about the War on Terror, Osama bin Laden, the war in Iraq (which they’ve merged into the War on Terror), and tax cuts. In defense of journalists, it’s just more interesting to talk about what one new guy (or gal) wants to change than what the other new guy wants to keep the same.

The third reason is the kicker, though. I’d argue that part of the equation is that much of Obama’s screen time has been negative press. Sure, he’s been talked about more than McCain. But McCain should thank his lucky stars he hasn’t been discussed and picked apart the way that Obama has – by all of the news outlets.

Have we heard the media discuss, ad nauseum, all of the people associated with McCain for the past twenty years, the way the media has cast doubt on Obama’s allegiances by discussing his pastor and casual acquaintances? McCain definitely couldn’t weather such scrutiny, whether the topic is his wife’s wealth, the shadowy Keating 5 story, the fact that he cheated on and then abandoned his crippled wife, or the lobbyists and anti-labor people McCain has been associated with in Ohio, among other places. Should the media discuss his personal life? Probably not. But neither should people complain that Obama is getting the better end of the deal.

It’s not just my speculation. The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University – hardly a crowd of liberal Obama lovers - released a study today saying that Obama is not getting a free ride in the media.

From the LA Times:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

…the center’s director, Robert Lichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts.

“This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage,” he said.

While Obama has been attacked by all of the major networks on many non-issue topics, the media has glossed over McCain’s many foreign policy gaffes, with CBS even going so far as to rearrange and edit McCain’s interview answers in order to make him appear less confused about the time line in the main issue he’s running on: the War in Iraq.

There are a few rumblings of stories online criticizing McCain’s military service, and certainly those aren’t worth giving a larger voice to, but his commendable behavior during his awful ordeal in Vietnam thirty years ago should not give him a shield against criticism about his military and foreign policy views now.

Similarly, the media lets McCain skate on economic issues. While McCain talks about belt tightening and tax cuts, many new outlets haven’t addressed that people making under $120,000 per year actually pay less in taxes under an Obama administration than under a McCain one and that both candidates offer tax cuts for everyone who makes less than $603,000 per year.

Finally, Lichter’s comment that more coverage isn’t always better coverage is an idea that should be - and in fact is starting to be - embraced by the McCain campaign. His alternately flippant and inaccurate answers, his long pauses before formulating a response, and his inappropriate jokes might be the reason the McCain camp itself has started to pull back the largely unfettered media access they had initially allowed to their candidate. The Straight Talk Express has been diverted onto a smaller track, and with good reason: the campaign folks are growing uneasy about their ability to control the message.

If fair is going to be fair - and I do think more coverage of McCain would be fair - then we have to be willing to discuss the kind of coverage each candidate is getting, and his treatment by the press. To crown Obama the ‘Media Darling’ is disingenuous at best, and distracts us from the real business of deciding who should lead our nation come January.