Having studied journalism myself, I was under the impression that when writing a story you are meant to present not only both sides, but also use supporting evidence when you clearly have it.

Consider this quote taken verbatim from the 3rd presidential debate:

Bush: I believe that younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account, because I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust.

To me that says that W clearly supports the privitization of Social Security, and then Kerry clearly points out the hole in this logic.

Kerry: You just heard he president say that young people ought to be able to take money out of Social Security and put it in their own accounts.
Now, my fellow Americans, that's an invitation to disaster.
The CBO said very clearly that if you were to adopt the president's plan, there would be a $2 trillion hole in Social Security, because today's workers pay in to the system for today's retirees. And the CBO said -- that's the Congressional Budget Office; it's bipartisan -- they said that there would have to be a cut in benefits of 25 percent to 40 percent.
Now, the president has never explained to America, ever, hasn't done it tonight, where does the transitional money, that $2 trillion, come from?

Now that the two are on the campaign trail, and Kerry is again pointing out what the president already said, journalists are not even quoting the material from the debate! This is what was printed in an article by David Espo for the AP

Along the way, he [Kerry] accused his rival of "shameless scare tactics." In an Associated Press interview aboard Air Force One, Bush said Kerry is "trying to scare our seniors" with false charges of a secret Republican plan to privatize Social Security.

I know my hatred for Bush doesn't make me very impartial, but come on! No mention at all about his remarks from the debate! This causes me major frustration. Although the president doesn't clearly say he will put his "belief" into policy, his track record and the things he has said regarding social security are cause for concern. Someone needs to at least point it out for crying out loud!