Catchy headline pulled me in....

What a room filler! With a headline like "Why the Washington Post Sucks," I immediately clicked on The Other McCain to find out who considered that to be a news flash. He posted the WaPo's policy statement which read:

“Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything — including photographs or video — that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility.”

The Other McCain was having fun with that ... check it out!

Obama and the media

"Most of you covered me ... all of you voted for me."

Barack Obama (talking to media at Correspondents Dinner, 5/9/09)

New York Times in serious denial ... ignores tea parties

Wednesday saw the largest tax protest ever in the history of the United States ... but check out today's front page of the New York Times. Yep ... you guessed it. Nothing about the hundreds of tea parties held nationwide in America ... nothing!

There's photos of a protest in Afghanistan ... but nothing about what happened right under their noses.

Is any further proof of media bias needed?

Media bias?

Journalists are becoming more blatant every day in their liberal bias. This chart should probably have the gray "other" section colored red for "liberal." What happened to "Fair and Balanced"?

Heh! Jerry has a point....

From On High....

Media are "sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans"

Was there any doubt that the mainstream media are more favorable to Democrats and push their liberal-leaning agenda? Investor's Business Daily reports on a study that proves the bias:

Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Looking at morning news shows, newspapers, National Public Radio, and cable news outlets, the study found newspapers were the most biased:

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative. ...

The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."

That is certainly true with the Misleader in Staunton.

The study concluded by stating:

The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book "The Media Elite"; "A Measure of Media Bias," a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, "Bias" and "Arrogance."

All underscore the media's leftward leanings. The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story — one that can't be edited or spiked.

Check out the article for other interesting and eye-opening comparisons.

What if, indeed

Today's Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial, "Different Stories," does a good job defining the mainstream media's hypocrisy in their news coverage of Democrats and Republicans. Take, for instance, the incident several months ago of Jim Webb's assistant being arrested with a loaded pistol at the Senate office building in D.C.

The Times-Dispatch plays devil's advocate:

Playing "What if . . . " can be a silly game. On the other hand, as a speculative exercise, it may be enlightening if limited to broad themes and relatively simple matters. And it's almost always fun, so what the heck:

What if the aide to a conservative Republican senator from Virginia -- someone like, say, George Allen -- had been arrested for carrying a loaded pistol into a Senate office building?

And what if, after the arrest, the senator had refused to answer questions about the gun's ownership -- but admitted nearly three months later that he did indeed own the gun?

What if, indeed.

It is against the law to carry a handgun in the District of Columbia. And it is impossible -- without a helicopter -- to reach Capitol Hill without traveling through parts of D.C.

So what if a newspaper reporter asked our hypothetical conservative Republican senator whether he complies with D.C. gun laws and the senator's response was: "I don't think we need to discuss that anymore"?

Does anyone honestly believe the media would nod and let the matter rest? But that has essentially been the response to the real-life version of our cleverly constructed what if, which differs -- as readers have no doubt deduced -- only in that the senator is Democrat Jim Webb.

The TD openly examines the actions of its fellow MSM's coverage -- or lack of -- throughout this episode.

Truth be told, we believe the media's response to the story has been appropriate. Petty use of the law to score political points is unseemly and undermines both the integrity of the public debate and respect for the law. Webb's offense -- if there was one at all -- seems relatively minor.

On the other hand, much of the media has spent the past six years working to undermine conservative Republicans by slamming them with unproven or absurdly arcane charges of legal wrongdoing. The Justice Department seems to be doing a good job catching the real crooks in both parties, including plenty of Republicans. The media's standards are much lower.

We've heard few demands for further investigation into Webb's gun kerfuffle -- and the media display little appetite to pursue the public's right to know more about the incident. And that's probably best.

But what if Webb were a Republican? Now that might be a different story altogether.

Not "might be" a different story but "would be" a different story. We need look no further than the Washington Post and their coverage last fall of George Allen's campaign.

What if, indeed.

Newspaper wants conservative citizens to stay out of political process?

The Sayre for Senate campaign was different than any campaign I've ever worked. It was local and against a Republican incumbent ... and so it literally fell upon all of us to shoulder the load. The easy path as Republican leadership would have been to fall in line with the incumbent ... pound a few signs and it would pretty much have been over. Voila! Easy campaign season.

But I've never taken the easy route just because it's the easy route. I follow my principles and the beliefs I have in government. That's why I got involved in politics in the first place ... why complain if not willing to work for change?

What puzzles me, however, is the piling-on of the local USA Today/Gannett-owned newspaper. Their editorial after the election was over the top, a sad representation of an information conduit that should be unbiased in its reporting but, instead, uses its power in a less-than-professional way.

Instead of recognizing and applauding that citizens were willing to participate in the democratic process, they mocked and called names of local volunteers who exercised their freedom and right to back a candidate of their choice.

Who did they mock? Unpaid volunteers from the community who represented a cross-section of the citizens living in the 24th District ... union truck drivers, insurance salesmen, retail employees, housewives, teachers, real estate marketers, pastors, high school and college students, and many others.

Volunteers were treated by the media in the same manner the media treats elected public servants. The difference this time was they attacked the volunteers and lined up with the public servants, even the electeds they had scorned and attacked on their pages in the past, most recently George Allen in last fall's election.

This does a disservice to citizens who may want to become involved. The newspaper can disagree with the position or the candidate ... but to go after those citizen volunteers who back a candidate the newspaper does not agree with in such a vicious manner deters folks in the community from wanting to participate in the political process.