For what it's worth, here's my take on recent developments:
Before the first debate, I wrote a note to myself so that something was time-stamped about what I thought would happen. I thought that a) Obama wouldn't do that well, compared to expectations, and that b) the media would seize on this as a game-changer. Remember that right before the debates happened it was starting to look inevitable for Obama. People were starting to utter the "L" word. (Landslide.) Etc.
This is boring. It's not what sells newspapers and gets page views. The media really, really likes a horserace (that is, a nail-biter rather than a clear path to victory).
So, Obama did worse yet than I expected, but the broad outlines are there. He also didn't do nearly as badly as the conventional wisdom would have it, and a I think a lot of the garment-rending and hair-tearing is feeding into a narrative that he utterly, epically tanked (he didn't, he missed opportunities but he didn't, like, choke, standing there stuttering or unable to speak or whatever).
So, whether Romney will have another 47% moment or whether things will just slide back slowly towards Obama, I do think that Obama will improve from here.
Things could still happen to skew that of course -- economics news, foreign policy happenings, an unforced error (really bad gaffe, not just a lackluster debate performance), etc.
But when I saw Obama breaking away I did have the thought that the media would seize on the next "game changer," and it did.
I think this all worked to Obama's advantage in the primaries, by the way. When Hillary was the presumptive nominee, that was boring, and this upstart Obama was interesting. Through positive action from Obama (a great campaigner, a great campaign) and negative action from Hillary (a so-so campaigner, a really messed-up campaign), the leg up offered by the media at the beginning became something sustainable. I don't think there is really an equivalent with Romney, especially because much of the early problem with Obama is that many people liked him a lot but didn't think it was possible that he could win. Once it became a real possibility, that snowballed. Whereas Romney is nominee purely because people think he was the most likely out of the possibilities to win, while they don't really like him that much.
The point is, I don't think this is a media bias thing -- that the media is biased for or against Democrats or Republicans. I think the media is biased against boring stuff, and makes "interest" whether it is organically there or not.