Political Ads, Bias, and Credibility

I believe in traditional news media, especially in election years when the public is hungry for the truth and fact checking is only a click away. It's true that some channels lean right while others veer left, but I still trust both sides' coverage to be honest, if not 100% nonpartisan. A little bias is unavoidable, and even healthy. But generally, both sides of the media do a relatively good job of digging up the facts.

I understand why news organizations accept political advertising. As a media professional, I'd be fuming if CNN wouldn't accept campaign ads. Viewers are clearly interested in the election and seeking information. Demographics for these channels describe the likely voter: older, white, higher income, and so on. So I get it. But when I read a story on Washington Post this morning, I couldn't help but be surprised by these Obama ads:




I'm reading a story about the debate, and there's Obama's hopeful face staring back at me. Does this bother anyone else? Maybe it's only a problem in online and print, where the content is directly juxtaposed with the ad. Something just doesn't feel right about this very evenly balanced, non-partisan coverage...sponsored by Obama for America.

The media is already drawing record eyeballs with their pre-election coverage. I think CNN or Fox News could generate some awesome PR--not to mention a credibility boost--for refusing to air political ads, even just for the last month leading up to the election. But do they dare risk pissing off these campaigns and the agencies that represent them? What do you think?

As far as online and print, obviously the Post accepts political ads, but I couldn't find any info on nytimes.com or wsj.com. Even cnn.com and foxnews.com seem to be relatively light on ads. Anybody have any info on whether these guys have banned Obama and McCain from their sites?