After the 2008 US Presidential election, a number of senior editors and executives at major U.S. news organizations admitted that their coverage of Barack Obama was "soft": that there was little of the critical investigative reporting that they had directed towards George Bush from 2000 on. Some admitted (and a few bragged) that their campaign coverage was worth 5-10% swing in votes for Obama.
Have things changed this campaign? Probably - but not necessarily in a positive way. How many continuously weak economic reports can you honestly label as "unexpected"? (For the AP, the count's 3+ years and ongoing - but perhaps that's economic ignorance and not partisanship at work). But this was too funny and too sad not to share.
Source: Cartoon: Media Monkeys on Bengazi, Independent Journal Review
h/t - Instapundit