No matter how one cuts it, the media has seriously scaled back reporting of the War. Personally I'm glad for that, but the fact of the matter is that the war has not seriously changed since about the first month of either given theater, and casualties have remained minimal the whole time in all fronts. I think the media had a bias against Bush and for Obama that influenced their coverage but mostly I think they just covered it initially because it was big news, then covered the bad news later because people were interested, and now... well a decade is a long time to maintain deep interest, and during a recession depressing war news doesn't make for good feed. I think the drones get coverage mostly because they're cool/scary depending on the viewer. There's really only so many times one can repeat, even with gloss and exaggeration, the perpetual theme of what amounts to a police action in a high crime neighborhood.

Nonetheless I do think what gets reported and how is heavily influenced by the reporters, that's a given, and I don't think there's any reason for us to pretend that the affiliation of the commander-in-chief relative to their own isn't going to play a fairly significant role in how those people view the conduct of the war. Realistically, Obama has not seriously altered our tactics, to his credit, meaning that when little has actually changed in ground tactics but the flavor of the reporting has, there's room to point at reporters and say 'bias'. It's happened across the board, some more positive, some more negative. I'm sure you can guess which way I think the net shift has been, but that's not really important, what matters is that it is there and tangible and various reporters and media outlets deserve some scorn for that, and a lot of caution about their take on other matters.