Coverage, or publicity?

Over at the Nieman Watchdog, George Lardner wonders, in Spreading Lies, Rather Than Debunking Them, about a recent Washington Post story that he calls a 'front page ad' for a couple of new books about Barack Obama.

...why did the Post put a so-called news story about the book (and incidentally, for the sake of “fairness” no doubt, a pro-Obama book) on Page 1? And why did it fail to cite its lies instead of just saying that the main-stream media had pointed some out.
...The Post couldn’t bring itself to do what a newspaper should do and tell its readers what was true and what was false. It has been unable to do this in its presidential campaign coverage for many years, but most often in the last two decades.

Interesting reaction from Lardner, who wrote for the Post for many years. But what if the paper made the story more even-handed? It would be accused of 'liberal bias'.