Independent media politics. What?

We've all seen it - the questionable relationship between the media and the political world, especially now that the '08 race to the White House is becoming increasingly critical.

Kelly McBride, ethics blogger for Poynter, wrote an article about how an independent relationship can be compromised by a campaign's use of a reporter's positive feedback on their candidate:

"When favorable stories about a political candidate are used by a campaign or a
political action committee to generate support, or when the opposition uses
negative stories to tear down a candidate, it compromises the perception that
the reporter and the newsroom are independent."

However, isn't this relationship already compromised by their traditional announcement of their endorsements of political candidates, such as the Des Moines Register's endorsement of both Clinton and McCain before the caucus took place.

Should a major media outlet be allowed to endorse candidates? Isn't that potentially influencing instead of merely educating? Isn't that removing their unbiased position that journalists are supposed to maintain?

"Despite research challenging the effectiveness of endorsements, many news
organizations embrace the tradition because, as they see it, endorsing
candidates is a journalistic
obligation to readers.

'We have such a rare opportunity as residents but also as journalists to
listen to these candidates,' said Monitor editor Felice Belman [...] 'Why
wouldn't we give readers the opportunity to tell them what we've learned?'"
- Mallary Jean Tenore, Centerpiece
blogger for Poynter

A journalistic obligation to inform the public? Yes. A journalistic obligation to ruin the supposedly independent relationship between politics and the media? No way.