WASHINGTON
— Next week, Tony Rezko, a Chicago developer and political fixer with close ties to Barack Obama, goes on trial for extortion, money-laundering and fraud. And yet only one newspaper in North America, the Chicago Sun-Times, carried a story yesterday mentioning the coming trial.
Outside Chicago, the Obama-Rezko affair has received only sporadic coverage, despite acts that Mr. Obama admits were "boneheaded mistakes."
No wonder Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer admits to being "just angry" at how the media are covering the Democratic presidential nomination.
Ms. Clinton openly accuses the American media of bias in their coverage of her and of Mr. Obama's campaign. In essence, the Clinton camp believes that reporters go out of their way to criticize her, but are so enamoured of Mr. Obama that they ignore or minimize information that might cause voters to question his fitness for the presidency.
"I think it is true, that every time the Obama campaign in this campaign has attacked Ms. Clinton in the worst kind of personal ways, attacked her veracity, attacked her credibility, said that she would say or do anything to get elected, the press has largely applauded him," Howard Wolfson, Ms. Clinton's press secretary, bitterly accused earlier this week.
"When we have attempted to make contrasts with Senator Obama, we have been criticized for it. That is a fact of life that we labour under."
Ms. Clinton noted in Tuesday's debate that: "In the last several debates I seem to get the first question all the time.
"I don't mind. I'll be happy to field it," she went on. "I just find it curious, if anybody saw Saturday Night Live. Maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow."
In the SNL sketch, aired last Saturday, the comedian playing Mr. Obama says reporters are "tired of being told 'you journalists have to stay neutral. You can't openly take sides in a political campaign.' They're saying: 'Yes We Can.' '' Thomas Edsall, a veteran reporter who teaches journalism at Columbia University, believes the Clinton campaign has a point.
"The complaint is legitimate," he said yesterday. "The press is more favourable to Obama than to Clinton."
There are several reasons for it. Bill and Hillary Clinton, Mr. Edsall believes, have hated the media since he became president in 1993. The accumulated insults, resentments, betrayals and controversies have so poisoned relations between journalists and the Clintons that objective, or even fair, reporting is virtually impossible.
Beyond that, "the Obama campaign is a much more exciting campaign. And reporters have sometimes allowed themselves to get too much caught up in that excitement."
Mr. Obama's multicultural background, the tremendous enthusiasm he generates at public appearances, his inspiring - if ill-defined - message of reconciliation appeals to well-educated, relatively affluent liberal voters, which is also a pretty good description of most reporters.
That may be why, although the Chicago media have devoted a great deal of effort to investigating the links between Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama, the national media have largely left the story alone.
Mr. Rezko raised large sums of money for Mr. Obama throughout his years as an Illinois politician. Mr. Rezko's wife purchased a garden lot, and Mr. Obama a house next door, on the same day and from the same seller. Ms. Rezko subsequently sold part of her land to Mr. Obama, for what might not have been fair market value.
Mr. Obama has said he regrets the real-estate transaction and has donated to charity money raised on his behalf by Mr. Rezko.
Still, the media have given the story little shrift, compared with the obsessive attention paid to the Clinton family's business dealings, and to Senator John McCain's relations with lobbyists.
The media have also demonstrated an affection for Mr. McCain, the presumed Republican nominee. Perhaps, if and when Mr. Obama secures the Democratic nomination and goes head-to-head against Mr. McCain, the scrutiny of Mr. Obama will increase.
But it may never reach the level to which Ms. Clinton has been subjected, and certainly won't before Ohio and Texas have rendered their judgment next Tuesday.
Who cares what the press says, once the votes have been counted?
