Op-Ed Article: "Media's Presidential Bias and Decline."

The link: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

(Before I go further ... I know that IE7 has tabs under the address bar and that I could simply open another tab in the browser instead of opening another browser. And that's true. I am in fact using IE 7, it's just simpler for me to open another browser and to move between them that way. But I've had a few emails asking why I don't do this. Now you know. :) But thank you for the emails. I've written this before, but it bears saying again - knowing that people are reading this blog is humbling. Truly. Thank you again.)

Ok...where was I? :)

OH! This Opinion-Editorial article is both telling and damning, in my opinion. It's also long. But the article's author, Michael S. Malone, states his argument clearly and concisely. I'm going to quote only a bit of it ... since I don't have the right to quote more of it, and it's a juicy read. But I fear that rabid people on the far-left are going to be very very upset at Mr Malone. His article is, in my opinion, that damning.

"The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling."

I've written about liberal bias in the media, as have many others. There have been numerous polls about the bias. But now Mr Malone calls it "...appalling." And, he's right, at least in my opinion. How many times have I and numerous others written about the "Obamedia," and the Cult of Personality being created by that same media? How many times have we complained that the media treats Obama/Biden with kiddie gloves and slams McCain/Palin? Now Mr Malone actually says it. And, in my opinion, the people on the far-left are going to ensure that he "pays" for it, too.

"Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page." Mr Malone even goes on to specifically name two newspapers, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

As Rush Limbaugh would say "STOP THE PRESSES!!!" But many others have written about that, too. We've pointed out, rightly I believe, that there indeed is a place in a newspaper for opinions - that being the Op-Ed section. But read Mr Malone's section carefully, he said it was creeping "...into the news section, and from there onto the front page." And, again in my opinion, he's right on the money. Opinion, either for or against a certain subject, has no place in a truly unbiased media other than the Opinion-Editorial section. Personal blogs (yes, that emphasis on personal) are also good places for opinions.

And then, Mr Malone says the following. And this, again in my opinion, is where Mr Malone will be vilified by the far-left.

"But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story … but it never happened."

(CNNi is not a typo, it is CNN International.) That's a long quote, and I only have one word to say in response: Pallywood. (True, his article goes on for three more pages (again, it is a juicy read) but I'm done quoting from it. Please do read it in its entirety, however. It is an excellently written article and my hat is off to Mr Malone for daring to write it.) Ok, two words. Pallywood and Hezbollywood.

Pallywood. The word is a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood." And Hezbollywood?

Two links: The first one is the Pallywood entry at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood

This one is Professor Richard Landes' documentary "Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood:_According_to_Palestinian_Sources

You'll note that both articles are flagged in that their neutrality is disputed. In my opinion, they are neutral. But again, that is my opinion. The other thing is that you can write anything you want to be completely neutral, but somebody, somewhere, would dispute it. That goes right back to my hypothetical match up I referenced earlier.

Let's assume that Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell were both running for President. Well, they're both African-American, so that would remove the race card from play. But you know as well as I do that if you were to vote for Gen. Powell that somebody somewhere would scream "sexist" because of the way you voted. It's not quite the same as neutrality, but the point is the same. Somebody, somewhere is always going to object to something you do.

And Hezbollywood? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollywood

You can also do a Google search for those three words. Just stand back. There's a lot there. :)

(H/T: Drudge Report, Wikipedia)