Public's BS detectors set to medium-high

Via Hot Air, a Rasmussen Reports poll:

Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year—Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment.

At the other extreme, 43% say Clinton received the worst treatment from the media. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say the media was roughest on McCain and only 15% thought the media coverage was most unfair to Obama.

Looking ahead to the fall campaign, 44% believe most reporters will try to help Obama while only 13% believe that most will try to help McCain. Twenty-four percent (24%) are optimistic enough to believe that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

The problem isn't, of course, so much that the media is biased towards the most leftist possible candidate--everybody knows that.  The problem is that these same biased reporters claim to be objective, when we all know (or, at least 68% of us--according to the Rasmussen--know) that they aren't.  And that impeaches their overall trustworthiness.  When you're in the business of news, you're either an objective reporter, or you're Rush Limbaugh/Keith Olbermann.  This is not a sliding scale, either.  It's either one or the other--truly objective, or in the tank for one side or the other.  In the words of the old analogy, "a little bit biased" is a lot like "a little bit pregnant."