PhoenixDark said:
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you but it's impossible to deny that the media has literally gone to bat for Obama constantly. Which is a shame because they're letting him walk through the election without taking a critical look at him, perhaps to avoid the calls of prejudice and racism his campaign has been effective at using to their advantage.
The longer this race goes on the longer the high ratings will be. It behooves them to par up the underdog, and it's been a strategy of both candidates to try and retain/attain that status.
This is why they cut away from Clinton's speeches. People will lose interest and switch away, and I've no doubt that's the actual case in whatever hard data they can collect. Obama on the other hand means high ratings, and so you cut to him rather than away.
They try to offer equal time but the candidates themselves aren't equal. People enjoy listening to Obama more, and Clinton has a former president stumping for her. More exposure from her side means more points of attacks, and a failure to get people to like to listen to you means less time people will devote to airing it to others.
People are also confusing 'critical look' with digging as deep as you can until you find inevitable points of disagreement. They've dug as far as they have for Clinton, it just so happens that Obama is a relatively clean candidate up to that point and they'd have to forensically analyze his life for more 'critical' dirt, something that they didn't need to do for Clinton because the skeletons in her closet float to the surface readily.