The ombudsman — readers’ advocate — for the Washington Post has tackled that question a couple times in recent days. The question also was the focus of a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, which found the answer to be “yes.”

This subject was raised with the Washington Post’s Andy Alexander in an online chat this morning:

Washington, D.C. : You wrote on Sunday about the survey that found more “favorable” stories about Obama — as if that was a reflection of bias in the press corps. Couldn’t it be a reflection of reality? I’m guessing that writing that Obama is making people feel more optimistic and has a high approval rating would be coded a “positive” story — but writing that Bush had a credibility problem and a low approval would be coded a “negative” story. But wouldn’t you consider both “fair”? Doesn’t this kind of thinking put pressure on reporters to write negative stories about positive events and positive stories about negative events, just to be “balanced”? What good is that?

Alexander answered:

Good question. I’m not suggesting that coverage needs to be measured so that it’s precisely 50-50. And the Pew study that I referenced explained some of the reasons that President Obama is enjoying favorable press. For example, he came to office with a sizable electoral majority (unlike President’s Clinton or George W. Bush). Also, he’s had a very activist agenda in response to extremely challenging issues confronting the nation.

My advice to reporters covering Obama is simple: be critical, be accurate and be fair. That means asking the tough questions and paying attention to what’s being raised by the loyal opposition. It’s the job of the press to hold public officials to high standards and to closely question them.

Finally, about my Sunday column. . .the Pew study was raised in the context of how readers often see bias in The Post’s coverage. I focused on very favorable pieces Tom Shales has written about Obama’s TV appearances. Shales is a superb TV critic, perhaps the best. It’s his job to offer his view of what’s on television. My only point was that it should be clearly labeled as a “review” or as “criticism.” Surprisingly, not all readers know his role.

In his Sunday column, Alexander said the Pew study concluded that Obama “has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House.”

Alexander wrote:

Conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, the survey was based on a sampling of stories on network television newscasts and in national publications, including The Post.

The study found that “positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one” — 42 percent to 20 percent — while 38 percent were neutral or mixed.”

The Pew study examined:

Two newspapers — the New York Times and the Washington Post. One news magazine — Newsweek. Four TV evening newscasts — ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and PBS Newshour.