The elections were more than three weeks ago, and little's been said about the extreme media bias in favor of Barack Obama. Responding to reader complaints of The Washington Post's "lack of probing issues coverage" and a "tilt" toward Obama, Post ombudsman Deborah Howell admitted "they are right on both counts." Regarding vice presidential candidates: "Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission."

The independent Pew Research Center studied the coverage by media outlets and found during the six weeks following the conventions, Obama's coverage was more positive than negative, but John McCain's was 57 percent negative to 14 percent positive.

The effect of Obama declining the $84 million in public financing was huge. He raised $150 million in September alone. Who were his countless anonymous contributors? Did he buy this election? Could others? The Federal Election Commission, by law, must audit McCain's publicly financed campaign, but not Obama's.

Reporting Internet rumors as fact, relying on "anonymous" sources, investigating "Joe the Plumber," personally attacking Sarah Palin -- all shows a deteriorating media.

Will the Obama presidency be scrutinized or will the love fest continue?

Sheila Thompson

Salt Lake City