The Monday morning election quarterbacking continues. Perhaps you won't be surprised to hear that, according to those who write about such things, the media did not perform well. Over at the Washington Post the resident ombudsman Deborah Howell says that despite all its good coverage the paper came up short.

The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13...Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic.

He's over at The Daily Beast today talking about the McCain that he knew (the McCain that back in the summer of 2007 attracted more media coverage of his lagging campaign because of the "open access he gave them").Says Salter:

I often had the feeling that reporters were motivated by a well-intentioned desire to help America prove that we had overcome racial bigotry.