Actually this isn't just the media exposing itself, this is a case of the media out right dropping its pants and running around a populated shopping mall.
You've by now heard the story after story about Mitt Romney's dog on the roof of his car from years ago when he took a family vacation. ABC focused an interview with Ann and Mitt Romney on their 1983 trip. Huffington Post wrote about it as did the NY Times on a number of occasions and so did the Boston Globe. Politifact makes a point to state that it's true.
Of all the stories I've found only Politifact points out the following:
It's important to note that the dog was not literally strapped to the car, as in tied around its midsection. Rather, Seamus was in a carrier with a protective windscreen that Romney had built.
They all conviently leave out the fact that the carrier was designed with a windscreen to protect the dog.
This story regardless has caught so much attention that there are even facebook groups of dog lovers opposed to Mitt Romney posting picture after picture of dogs in cars or cartoons of dogs on car roofs.
Ok, so since it is a true story aside from the fact being left out about the windscreen you are most likely asking yourself why I so harshly claim this is an example of media bias. For my evidence I submit a quote from Obama's book "Dreams From My Father", chapter two to be exact:
“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.”
When I looked for Obama ate dog on politifact not a single article came up in return.
Sites like the Huffington Post attempt to put the focus back on Mitt Romney by quoting Obama's book then writing the following:
Treacher brought out the excerpt as a way of responding to a weird old story that has haunted Romney's presidential ambitions since the Boston Globe first reported it in 2007. The story goes like this: In 1983, Romney strapped the family dog's crate to the roof of the car for a 12-hour drive from Massachusetts to Canada because there was no room in the car. During the trip, the dog, an Irish Setter named Seamus, suffered the "runs," as Ann Romney put it this week. Her husband coolly pulled over to hose off the dog and the car, then kept driving.
When the anecdote came out, Alabama resident Scott Crider launched an online group called Dogs Against Romney, which now has 48,000 fans on Facebook and has sought to keep the Seamus story in the news this year, with increasing success thanks partly to Rick Santorum, who was happy to bring it up.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt responded with a tweet questioning Fehrnstrom's decision to embrace the story from Obama's childhood: "What's the next attack @EricFerhn and the RNC will surface on a 6-10 year old?"
Other news sites have likewise attempted to dismiss this story as it being no big deal. The Facebook group's "Dogs Against Romney" owner dismissed it in an interview stating "it seems desperate for the Romney campaign to bring up something that happened to Obama when he was 10-years old, not preparing his own meals, in a country where eating dog meat probably isn't all that unusual - as if it compares in any way to Romney, as a 36-year old adult, in America, making the conscious decision to strap his family pet to the roof of a car for a 12-hour drive, and leaving it up there even after it got sick."
Maybe it's just me but Obama didn't write his book when he was 10, he wrote it as an adult and in the quote above he doesn't express any issues with it other then the meat was a little tough.
Roof of the car vs roof of a mouth. Personally I think the eating dog is worse if you want to find fault in either.