I assure you I meant neither harm nor malice to the writer in question. My sole intention was to restore in him some sense of appreciation for his duties as a man and a reporter. “If one could shame a liberal,” I felt, “one might help him to gain his self-respect.” This was on my mind. Now, I freely admit my method was wrong. But I hope you can understand my motive, and accept this… apology.

This begs the question of why the news media is widely reviled by the public. Also, why polls consistently show the public — even a sizeable number of Democrats — believing the media favoring Obama over McCain.

Could it be examples like “The Atlantic” hiring a fiercely anti-Republican photographer to do a cover portrait of McCain?
A photographer who — amazed at being hired, given her professed beliefs — attempts to take the worst possible pictures of McCain.

The Atlantic editors still claim that they think their cover picture is a fine one, and that it is all a matter of interpretation.

This is the classic media/liberal fallback. It is all a matter of interpretation…different viewpoints . . . .

In this case, however, the photographer described in detail how she made every picture — including the one chose — the worst possible in order to damage McCain.

This beauty of this example is that it is clear cut…we have an open confession.
The only way for Democrats to deny it is to stick their fingers in their ears and go: lalalalalalala…can't hear you!

But the New York Times persists in its fig leaf claim that it is unbiased and objective in its reporting.

In fairness, it must be said that McCain himself is a creation of media bias . . . and he had no complaints when the media covered his gaffes, and his anger and senior moments in 2000 . . . when he was fighting the liberal arch-nemesis Bush.

So it is hypocritical of McCain to complain about bias . . . a bias that he once enjoyed and benefitted from.

And yes, there is a political strategy at work here on McCain's part.

But he is also right . . . there is a media bias against him in this election.

You both must have a lot of extra time on your hands to waste reading posts by someone you consider “worse than the media”. LOL

DLS- Olbermann was removed from MSNBC's broadcasts covering the debates and the election, remember?

At the end of the day, it all begs the question “What has she got to hide?”- Mrs. “Hold me Accountable” has become “Call my accountant”.

Did Dan Quayle ever get this barricaded?
Transparent- nope nope.

Most people are reasonable and would easily come to agreement on the problems in our society if presented with the truth, but activist “reporters” misrepresent, lie and twist events into unrecognizable figments of their warped worldview.

These people who have chose to change the world through distortion already are reviled by the vast majority of the country and, with the advent of the internet, are now being exposed daily for their lies. However, shaming someone who doesn’t comprehend the meaning of the word does no good.

As the bastions of misinformation such as the NY Times and NBC news suffer the ridicule and financial punishment of a loss of trust, more and more truth will reach the general public. We can only hope that the process of routing out the fallacy merchants continues to thrive.

But there is no requirement that they show Sarah Palin due deference, nor should they.

It's enough to make people feel the Bush Cheney Kremlin crowd are at times still justified in being so Kremlinesque. After all, the media are normally just untrustworthy, scheming leftist Mongols looking for information to use to undermine and attack (while treating their liberal and Democratic counterparts in Washington so obviously much differently).

All that's needed now is for Keith Olbermann (Obama worshipper and nut case) to be extra scummy on nation-wide broadcasting toward Palin as well as McCain. The response among the higher half of the bell curve? Disgust and defense of Palin and McCain.

Little wonder why the public holds the media in such low esteem.