Well, No Kidding

From the Washington Examiner:
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press.
The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data & Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"The 2012 elections saw an 'issue trespassing' strategy with President Obama taking the initiative on the economy," found the survey of stories produced by 719 U.S. and international outlets.
The survey used a technical language processing analysis to filter all the stories and found that Obama was portrayed as an attack dog and Romney on defense. Key was Obama's ability to "own" the economic message despite Romney's repeated assaults and the public's general view that the GOP handles the economy better.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans. Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors, Their conclusion: "The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/smooch-study-of-130213-stories-shows-obama-bias-in-2012-election/article/2561554
The bias is only on the stories that were written.
That was far more bias in what the news media did not write about.
For instance, Obama's travels and golf playing, the poor economy, Obama Care etc.
And if you think the bias for Obama was bad in 2012, wait until 2016 if Hillary decides to run.  She will be declared Saint Hillary by the media and they won't look at the numerous scandals Clinton was involved in.
But only a person with a half a brain cell would go out and say the media is not biased against conservatives.