Brits dish out Best Coverage...?

After sifting through various news sites to find coverage on the final days before the election, I found that the best article was found on the BBC website. The article covers the candidates’ campaign through the key state of Pennsylvania, and I considered it to be the best because the writer took the time to give ample coverage of both campaign trails (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7695176.stm). The article includes key quotations said by both McCain and Obama on the trail, as well as video clips of campaign speeches. I thought it was especially readable for a busy public consumer because there were also subtitles within the article, giving the reader a sense of the facts if one had to merely skim the material. The writer pays special attention to remain as objective as possible, making the point at the beginning and end of the piece that, although Obama is up by at least five points in all the major polls, this does not mean decisive victory and the election is by no means won by either party.
It figures that the most objective and readable article I could find about the American presidential election was written and published by the non-American press. I guess this makes sense, since American journalists must do their best to strike a balance; on the one hand they must write news stories that are politically driven as objectively as possible while on the other they are themselves members of the American public who have their own political opinions. I am aware that this is an obvious point by now, but it’s always good to remember that journalists are people too!