Speaking of economics, The Seattle Times reported Thursday that Democratic congressional candidate Darcy Burner does not have an economics degree from Harvard University as she has claimed.

She did, however, take five courses in economics, which is considered a “concentration” within her degree, computer science.

We’ll soon know if this story becomes a scandal or if it’s just passed off as another ho-hum exaggeration in this toxic election climate, where relevant facts get blurred in the crossfire of irrelevant tabloid fodder.

To wit, splashed on the front of “USA Today,” is the expose of the century: Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has had a wardrobe makeover. If you’re potential first lady Michelle Obama, however, your wardrobe makes it into the New York Times fashion section, where you’re showered with admiring headlines like “Michelle Obama: Dressed to Win” (June 9).

The question for this election is, who is reporting on the reporters?

A free press is critical to an informed electorate. My point is not about who should be president, but an indictment against the press, which has displayed a shameless and willful neglect of its job to accurately and fairly report on the candidates and their positions.

More importantly, the press should show some semblance of respect for the intelligence of the voters. The choice of what is newsworthy is as important as how it is reported.

During the primaries, 35 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of independents surveyed expressed concern that the news media showed a clear bias toward Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Naturally, the percentage was higher among Republicans.

In March 2008, a Pew Research study, called the Project for Excellence in Journalism, found that conservative journalists were grossly underrepresented among all the major media (major newspapers, wire services and television news, both network and cable). Self-described liberals, on the other hand, were vastly overrepresented. Only 8 percent of journalists considered themselves conservative or very conservative. Compare this with the general population, where 35 percent consider themselves conservative. In contrast, 24 percent of journalists described themselves as liberal or very liberal, with only 19 percent of the public identifying themselves as such.

I am not one for conspiracies. Truthfully, it gives them too much credit. Still, the research about media bias tells me that people reporting the news have a political bias that is at odds with most of the public it purports to serve.

You mean nobody reported this? Ah, my point exactly.

The reason why Fox News is considered “conservative” is because they have the audacity to level the playing field by actually having liberal and conservative journalists on board. When everybody else leans left, the one who is dead center will appear to lean right. Hillary Clinton noted that Fox News was the only news outlet that treated her fairly during the primaries. Interesting endorsement.

This is why I enjoy talk radio, in contrast to the mainstream news media. The hosts of the various shows are open about their biases. Michael Medved is unapologetically conservative, while Dave Ross and Ken Schram are unapologetically liberal. Listeners are free hear each side make its case and discern for themselves. It’s called full disclosure.

Talk radio makes no such claim to be objective and fights it out to the extremes. This is how a free society works. It’s messy, but it’s free.

It is critical to a free society to have a press that keeps checks and balances on the power of politicians. The question is, are the people doing the reporting being fair to the politicians who do not represent their political ideology? Will a liberal journalist fairly critique and investigate a liberal politician they admire?

When Barack Obama was running in the primaries against Hillary Clinton, her main claim against Obama was his lack of experience. I don’t remember any news reporter taking him to task on his thin resume. Clinton was frustrated that she couldn’t get traction on this.

Obama has less than 200 days in the U.S. Senate and few accomplishments in the Legislature. Journalists have not pressed him on his lack of experience.

When Sarah Palin entered the stage, however, suddenly lack of experience was the crime of the century. Completely ignored was her executive experience over natural resources such as oil and natural gas, being the commander in chief of her own National Guard and the fact that she broke the cartel of Republican good ‘ole boys that had been running the state for generations. Charlie Gibson of ABC News accused her of hubris in his now famous “lookin’ down my nose” interview. His condescension and clear lack of respect for Palin was transparent and, again, embarrassing to any serious journalist.

More embarrassing has been the behavior of the television talk show circuit. The worst display of adoration for a candidate came from Barbara Walters, on “The View,” when she confessed to Obama, “We think you’re actually quite sexy.” Wretch.

Even though “The View” is hardly “news media,” it was shocking to see their fangs come out months later when John McCain was the guest. Whoopi Goldberg actually asked John McCain, “Do I need to worry about being a slave again?”

So, I ask again, during this contentious election season: Just who is reporting on the reporters? Are your decisions shaped by the cult of media hype or by fairly reported facts and analysis of the candidates? I report. You decide.

Federal Way resident Angie Vogt: vogt.e@comcast.net. For past columns and further commentary, visit www.soundupdate.com.