James Fallows of The Atlantic has a response to those sensing a left-wing media bias this election season. Take a look at this chart.

The analysis from Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism finds that in the past 12 months, President Obama "has always had more negative-than-positive coverage" in the mainstream media, while, starting in late February, Mitt Romney "has had much more positive-than-negative coverage through this year."

While conservative criticism of media bias has never abated, the argument gained new life from "centrist" commentators such as Politico's Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen yesterday (which provoked a rather severe backlash) and The New York Times' outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane, who all suggested that the press was going easy on Obama. For Allen and VandeHei, the complaints centered on the promotion of damaging Romney stories (anti-gay bullying, rich hobbies) over damaging Obama stories (weed habits) while Brisbane dinged his paper for overplaying a story on Ann Romney's blind trust, among other things. 

But Fallows is having none of it. "You can argue that negative coverage of the administration is justified," he writes. "You can argue that incumbents are -- and should be -- held to a tougher standard, since they have a record to defend. But you can't sanely argue that the press is in the tank for Obama, notwithstanding recent 'false equivalence' attempts to do so."

Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at jhudson at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
John Hudson