According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the national media was in the tank for President-elect Obama. Their exhaustive study concluded there were overwhelmingly more positive stories about Mr. Obama than his opponent, Senator John McCain.

I don't know about you, but I'm shocked. Stunned. Rocked off my foundation.

I'm about as surprised as the day I found out Santa Claus wasn't real (sorry kids).

I believe this story is best illustrated by the ombudsman for the Washington Post. After months of coverage the newspaper came to the conclusion that it had treated President-elect Obama better than Senator McCain. Ironically, their discovery came after the general election. Better late than never, I suppose.

Regarding tone, the Washington Post published 58 negative pieces about McCain, only 32 about Obama. Obama was also on the front page more -- 176 times, McCain just 144. The editorial page was overwhelmingly for Obama -- 32 positive pieces, 13 for McCain.

Oh, yeah -- and now that the election is over, the Post discovered that President-elect Obama deserved "tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influece- peddling in Chicago."

The Post ombudsman also offered this very interesting note: "The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager." Might I pose this question -- why not?

The national media had no problem dredging up Todd Palin's DUI record from more than 20 years ago, but newspapers like the Post chose to ignore the President-elect's self-admitted indiscretions.

Kudos to The Washington Post, though, for fessing up to what their readers have been complaining about all along -- they were lopsided.

Your thoughts?