Now that Hillary Clinton has officially conceded the Democrat presidential nomination, will media be as interested in former supporters bashing her campaign tactics as they are former Bush administration officials that write negative tell-all books about the president?

Given the media's almost total boycott of Friday's revelation from a New Jersey Democrat superdelegate who claims the Clinton campaign "engaged in some very divisive tactics and rhetoric it should not have," the answer appears to be a resounding "No" (picture courtesy Star-Ledger).

As you read the following article from New Jersey's Star-Ledger, just imagine the kind of attention such a bombshell would have gotten on television all day Friday and in Saturday's papers if the finger was being pointed at the McCain campaign (emphasis added, h/t Ace):

U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, who supported Hillary Clinton throughout the primary season, disclosed he received a phone call shortly before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary from a top member of Clinton's organization and that the caller explicitly discussed a strategy of winning over Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and African-Americans.

"There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me," Andrews said at his campaign headquarters in Cherry Hill Tuesday night after he lost his bid for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination.

"Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign ... that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing."

Interesting. He made these comments on Tuesday, but they didn't surface until slightly after midnight Friday. About seven hours later, the Associated Press reported:

A Democratic superdelegate from New Jersey is accusing Hillary Clinton's campaign of trying to exploit tensions between Jews and blacks.

U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, who supported Hillary Clinton, tells The Star-Ledger of Newark he received a call from a top member of Clinton's organization shortly before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. Andrews says the caller explicitly discussed a strategy of winning Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and blacks.

Yet, Google News and LexisNexis searches identified very little attention to Andrews' claims. Outside of New Jersey, it appears the Fort Worth Star-Telegram was the only paper in America that found this newsworthy.

Maybe even more bizarre was how the New York Times published a piece at its website Saturday, apparently for its Sunday print edition, discussing Andrews loss on Tuesday while completely ignoring his claims about the Clinton campaign.

Now that's good journalism, wouldn't you agree?

As for television, apart from Fox News's "Special Report," this matter went totally ignored, although this is impossible to completely confirm as many Friday transcripts don't get posted until the following Monday.

Even so, if this was April, and the nomination had not yet been decided, it seems a metaphysical certitude Obama-loving media would have been all over this revelation. Does this mean the press's attitude towards Hillary is now going to go back to the sycophantic adoration prevalent before Obama tossed his name into the presidential race?

Maybe more important, with the general election campaign now officially on, is this censorship a foreshadowing of what we can expect the next five months? Will media only report what helps the candidate they got nominated, and ignore everything that will in any way harm his chances of getting into the White House?

Rhetorical questions all. 

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.