Stop the presses! The Washington Post has admitted it slanted its 2008 presidential race coverage to benefit Democrat Barack Obama.

That revelation comes from Deborah Howell, the ombudsman for the newspaper.

Writing in today's edition, Howell says, "The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts."

Too bad Ms. Howell didn't get around to writing about the newspaper's biased coverage until after the election.

From Howell's column:

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

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. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.

McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, three months before Obama won his. From June 4 to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.

I'm glad The Washington Post has admitted what any reasonable person would conclude: The American media has lost all objectivity and is an advocate for the Democratic Party and the far-left agenda. Almost every large American newspaper can make the same confession.

The interesting thing now is how will the mainstream media cover the Obama administration. Will the media help cover up Obama's mistakes? At what point will the American public get fed up with the fluff coverage of Obama?

Can a newspaper like The Washington Post provide the same kind of coverage of the White House that it did during Watergate?

Read "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage," at the newspaper's Web site.