Richard W. Stevenson, who oversees The NY Times’s campaign coverage, is answering questions.

[groovedaddy]

Richard W. Stevenson, NY Times political editor and deputy Washington bureau chief, is answering questions from readers -

Q. It's clear to anyone who watched the news coverage of the primary that the media was incredibly biased in favor of Senator Barack Obama, and simultaneously incredibly negative toward Senator Hillary Clinton (and her husband). Some of this was clearly due to sexism. But there seemed to be other biases at work. What do you believe was at the root of this drastic difference in coverage? And what is the media going to do to ensure that in the future the press refrains from pushing candidates and confines itself to simply reporting the news?

— Steve Pesce, California

Q. Your bias in the primaries was definitely toward Hillary Clinton and it was disgusting. The constant sensationalist coverage of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was downright shameful and reminiscent of tabloid journalism. The Times overlooked vetting the Clinton Foundation Library donors, Bill Clinton's ties to Colombia and China (income reported on joint tax statements) or pressing Clinton on why she voted for the war and was silent during Bush's catastrophic tax cuts for the wealthy. The primary coverage for The New York Times was All Clinton, All of the Time. Stories related to Mr. Obama were devoted to bowling, bitter comment, Rev. Wright, elitism, arugula, and claims of him being effete.

So my question is, when will The New York Times start vetting John McCain instead of defending him? Why not highlight his policy flip-flops, all the times he confused Sunni with Shiite, and the lobbyist corruption in his campaign?

— S.T. Corrao
More (with answers!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23askthetimes.html?pagewanted=all