For the past eight years, the conservative network Fox News has faced fierce criticism from left-leaning viewers and media outlets. For some, its slogan, “Fair and Balanced,” has become an ironic representation of everything it is not. Fox News has been called out for being a mouthpiece of the Bush administration, rather than an objective source of analysis. In an interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC this July, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan revealed that the White House actually gave talking points to commentators who were guests on Fox News shows. He claimed that, “It was something that we at the White House, yes, were doing and getting them talking points and making sure they knew where we were coming from.” The talking points were not used as a way of getting information out to the public, but as a way of influencing discourse. What makes Fox’s alleged bias so significant is the fact that the conservative party was in power, allowing those in power to manipulate the outlet to advance its own agenda.

Leftist media programs then slammed back with their seemingly favorable treatment of the Democratic Party and its causes. Heavily slanted television news programs such as Countdown with Keith Olbermann and Hardball with Chris Matthews, which was wittingly biased and at times polemical, became standard features on the 24-hour news circuit. It became the case that when bias was on the losing side, it was acceptable. In light of the relatively benign treatment Barack Obama received from many media outlets during the campaign, it is interesting to see how the media will treat him now that he is in office and no longer an opponent to the incumbent party.

Will more traditional forms of journalism such as newspapers and network news, which are not as explicitly biased as the programs on 24-hour news networks or web-based journalism, find themselves under pressure to be critical of Obama? Now that the nation is under Democratic leadership, it’s possible that the media will feel responsible to tone down their overwhelmingly favorable portrayal of Obama.

On November 6^th, The New York Times ran a front page article entitled, “With Victory in Hand, Obama Aides Say Task Is Now to Temper High Expectations.” Already the Obama team and the media felt the need to take steps towards lowering the unreasonably high expectations for the new president. While the new administration has made it clear that Americans should not expect automatic and immediate changes in the economy or health care reform, no one can deny that there has been a tremendous cultural turnover.

Since the inauguration, excitement and hope have replaced the cynicism that pervaded the Bush years. The new, optimistic attitudes of liberals that have been accompanying the election and transition will have an effect on the character of the liberal media, or at least how people will react to it. It is no coincidence that The Rachel Maddow Show debuted on MSNBC during this shift in America’s attitude. Even-tempered and erudite, Maddow has set a new tone for cable news outlets. She has described the format as essentially an opportunity for viewers to witness‚”the kinetic activity of the fight rather than what anybody says is the issue.” This point of view will have a place in the new presidency.

But what will happen to pundits like Keith Olbermann, who rely on fierce criticism of the Bush administration and conservative media for his show? His ongoing rivalry with Bill O’Reilly will be less effective, as O’Reilly will no longer be a voice of the party in power. This is bad news for Olbermann’s recurring segment, “The Worst Person in the World,” in which he names the three honorees in a devilish and flamboyant voice, accompanied by Bach’s “Toccata and Fugue in D Minor.”

Although there will certainly be blunders from both parties in the coming years, it’s possible liberals will begin to have less tolerance for this kind of journalism, which was popular as America became polarized in the Bush years. In an interview with New York Magazine in November, Maddow said, “I know I’m a liberal, but I don’t think the future of news is different depending on if we get one candidate or the other. If Obama gets elected, there will still be plenty of issues. We will still have two wars going on, national-security issues…”

This point of view makes sense for journalists who focus on issues of policy, but people like Olbermann, who focus heavily on relatively minor blunders of the Bush administration, will be facing the same challenges that satirists like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert will face. How relevant will they be as liberals during a liberal administration? Unfortunately for Olbermann, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert can continue to do what they are doing because they are not trying to be legitimate news sources. If Olbermann is able to survive in his current form, he is in danger of becoming as ridiculed as Fox News correspondents. [Editor’s note: Ben Affleck has already satirized Olbermann’s schtick for Saturday Night Live. See the video below.]

A few weeks into the new administration, coverage has seemed neither overly laudatory nor disparaging. In a February 1 op-ed piece in The New York Times, columnist Frank Rich directed his ire at the GOP and criticized the party for its lack of ideas or innovation in light of the President’s economic stimulus package. While little praise was leveled upon Obama, Rich also steered clear of any harsh criticism. Perhaps the media is still treating Obama with a certain fragility as a result of his newness. Another explanation might be that there simply are no criticisms to note at the moment, given that the president has been making an honest effort to reach out to Republican lawmakers and end the partisanship that Obama often spoke of in campaign rhetoric. As the administration ends its first month in office, the “left” media’s tone towards Obama will become more apparent.

Popularity: 1% [?]