Coverage unfair at first, now the field levels

Normally, I do not see a place for personal business, like sexual orientation or extramarital affairs as a necessary topic of discussion for an election. However, in the case of McCain and his relationship with the lobbyist, the event is worrisome in regards to showing favoritism. The coverage of this event has, in the New York Times, damned him from the beginning, as stated on Poynter. Instead of providing all of the information first and allowing readers to make their own choice, it begins with a mischievous plan by his staff. However, the information is important, as moral issues can sway the voting public. McCain addressed the allegations in a press conference, denying them, as covered by the Washington Post.

Overall, the coverage seems to be moved on to allowing him to speak about the allegations. However, a bit more objectivity (including non anonymous sources in the lead) would have been helpful.