Today's catch phrase is "media bias." Yesterday--the same day Drudge revealed that the New York Times rejected John McCain's op-ed rebutting Barack Obama's op-ed in the same paper--Rasmussen released a timely report:

The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

At Pajamas Media, Rick Moran asks, "With half the country able to see through the gushing idolatry of the press and their shameless promotion of Obama’s candidacy, where does that leave journalistic standards like objectivity and fairness?" Redstate's Pejman Yousefzadeh adds, "We need to ensure that an informed decision is made, and the more the media shows that it is in the tank for Barack Obama, the less confidence people will have that the appropriate information to make that decision is being afforded to the voting public." But Power Line's John Hinderaker finds the "silver lining": "I suspect that by November, lots of people will be in rebellion against the media's effort to make them vote for Obama."

Speaking of bias, it seems that the Obama campaign plays favorites, too--or rather, punishes journalists who make the campaign mad. Remember last week's controversial New Yorker cover? The Politico reported yesterday that the Obama campaign just couldn't find room for New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza on the press plane.

Coincidence? The Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman says, "If it was no coincidence, then it shows the Obama campaign is going to throw down the gauntlet to news organizations that run items that create big political problems." The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar remarks, "Whatever one thinks of the New Yorker cover--that it was clear satire that clearly lampooned ridiculous rumors, that it went way overboard, that it was a comedic misfire--a robust press can't operate under threat of reprisal for unwelcome items." And Megan McArdle adds, "If you excuse petty punishments of reporters on the grounds that all that really matters is the policy, you'll soon find that you've lost not only the reporters, but the good policy."

As the Los Angeles Times's Andrew Malcolm says, "Now, that's Chicago politics."