Dinosaur Media Watch: Chicago Sun-Times

Another dinosaur of the State Media is lumbering towards extinction. This item just appeared concerning the Chicago Sun-Times.

Sun-Times closing Chicago-area printing press

CHICAGO (AP) – The Chicago Sun-Times’ parent company is closing a suburban printing plant, which is expected to cost 70 jobs.

Sun-Times spokeswoman Tammy Chase confirms the Sun-Times Media Group plans to close its Pioneer Press printing plant in Northfield. Pioneer Press publishes dozens of Chicago-area community newspapers owned by the ailing conglomerate.

Chase couldn’t provide other details. And it isn’t clear where the community papers might be printed in the future.

The move comes amid waves of recent jobs cuts as the Sun-Times tries to reduce costs during its bankruptcy reorganization.

Chase says Sun-Times executives are meeting with union leaders to discuss efforts to sell the parent company. She declined to provide details.

Obama: I just don’t get no respect…

It’s tough to get respect out in the world today. Obama went to Russia to suck up to Putin and got nothing in return. Towards the end of the meetings, Putin and Obama went down a reception line of Russians and former Sovs. Each one warming shook Putin’s hand. When it was Obama’s turn and he extended his hand, they ignored him.

Wow! Russians Snubbed Obama– Refused to Shake His Hand! (Video)
Funny… Our state-run media didn’t report on this?
The Russians snubbed ObamaBIG TIME!
Hat Tip Desert Conservative

So much for pushing that reset button.

Leaving Russia, Obama went to Italy for a meeting of the G-8 where Obama in turn snubbed Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi.

Obama snubs Italian PM, walks on without shaking hands

New Delhi: Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is in the centre of another diplomatic incident, this time at the G5-G8 summit. Berlusconi was reportedly snubbed by US President Barack Obama.

But, when it came time to discuss “Cap ‘n Trade” among the G-8 members, China, India and Brazil told Obama to go pound sand. They weren’t interested. These three nations are working to raise themselves out of the 3rd-world status. Many area of these nations have no electrical power, no running water—no public, disinfected drinking water, no modern road infrastructure and only limited rail transportation. Dana Summer’s cartoon below just fits the bill.

Perhaps Obama will learn that a charming appearance and manner will win him nothing when he has earned no respect nor gives respect to other world leaders. Unless, of course, that “leader” is Castro, Chavez, Ortega, or Ahmadinejad.

The UK Times gets it!

The UK Times Online presents a column, “If each of us carried a gun…” about the effects of gun control and massacres of unarmed citizens by armed criminals. The Times states,

From
December 7, 2008

Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .

. . . we could help to combat terrorism

The firearms massacres that have periodically caused shock and horror around the world have been dwarfed by the Mumbai shootings, in which a handful of gunmen left some 500 people killed or wounded.

For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of “gun control”. India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny.

The guns used in last week’s Bombay massacre were all “prohibited weapons” under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership), but the largely drug-related nature of most extreme violence here has left most of us with a sheltered awareness of the threat. We have not yet faced a determined and broad-based attack.

The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian D’Souza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find India’s armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen.

In Britain we might recall the prolonged failure of armed police to contain the Hungerford killer, whose rampage lasted more than four hours, and who in the end shot himself. In Dunblane, too, it was the killer who ended his own life: even at best, police response is almost always belated when gunmen are on the loose. One might think, too, of the McDonald’s massacre in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, where the Swat team waited for their leader (who was held up in a traffic jam) while 21 unarmed diners were murdered.

Rhetoric about standing firm against terrorists aside, in Britain we have no more legal deterrent to prevent an armed assault than did the people of Mumbai, and individually we would be just as helpless as victims. The Mumbai massacre could happen in London tomorrow; but probably it could not have happened to Londoners 100 years ago.

In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.

Today we are probably more shocked at the idea of so many ordinary Londoners carrying guns in the street than we are at the idea of an armed robbery. But the world of Conan Doyle’s Dr Watson, pocketing his revolver before he walked the London streets, was real. The arming of the populace guaranteed rather than disturbed the peace.

That armed England existed within living memory; but it is now so alien to our expectations that it has become a foreign country. Our image of an armed society is conditioned instead by America: or by what we imagine we know about America. It is a skewed image, because (despite the Second Amendment) until recently in much of the US it has been illegal to bear arms outside the home or workplace; and therefore only people willing to defy the law have carried weapons.

In the past two decades the enactment of “right to carry” legislation in the majority of states, and the issue of permits for the carrying of concealed firearms to citizens of good repute, has brought a radical change. Opponents of the right to bear arms predicted that right to carry would cause blood to flow in the streets, but the reverse has been true: violent crime in America has plummeted.

There are exceptions: Virginia Tech, the site of the 2007 massacre of 32 people, was one local “gun-free zone” that forbade the bearing of arms even to those with a licence to carry.

In Britain we are not yet ready to recall the final liberty of the subject listed by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England as underpinning all others: “The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” We would still not be ready to do so were the Mumbai massacre to happen in London tomorrow.

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India,” Mahatma Gandhi said, “history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” The Mumbai massacre is a bitter postscript to Gandhi’s comment. D’Souza now laments his own helplessness in the face of the killers: “I only wish I had had a gun rather than a camera.”

Richard Munday is the co-author and editor of Guns & Violence: The Debate Before Lord Cullen

The UK Times gets it!

The UK Times Online presents a column, “If each of us carried a gun…” about the effects of gun control and massacres of unarmed citizens by armed criminals. The Times states,

From
December 7, 2008

Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .

. . . we could help to combat terrorism

The firearms massacres that have periodically caused shock and horror around the world have been dwarfed by the Mumbai shootings, in which a handful of gunmen left some 500 people killed or wounded.

For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of “gun control”. India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny.

The guns used in last week’s Bombay massacre were all “prohibited weapons” under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership), but the largely drug-related nature of most extreme violence here has left most of us with a sheltered awareness of the threat. We have not yet faced a determined and broad-based attack.

The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian D’Souza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find India’s armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen.

In Britain we might recall the prolonged failure of armed police to contain the Hungerford killer, whose rampage lasted more than four hours, and who in the end shot himself. In Dunblane, too, it was the killer who ended his own life: even at best, police response is almost always belated when gunmen are on the loose. One might think, too, of the McDonald’s massacre in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, where the Swat team waited for their leader (who was held up in a traffic jam) while 21 unarmed diners were murdered.

Rhetoric about standing firm against terrorists aside, in Britain we have no more legal deterrent to prevent an armed assault than did the people of Mumbai, and individually we would be just as helpless as victims. The Mumbai massacre could happen in London tomorrow; but probably it could not have happened to Londoners 100 years ago.

In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.

Today we are probably more shocked at the idea of so many ordinary Londoners carrying guns in the street than we are at the idea of an armed robbery. But the world of Conan Doyle’s Dr Watson, pocketing his revolver before he walked the London streets, was real. The arming of the populace guaranteed rather than disturbed the peace.

That armed England existed within living memory; but it is now so alien to our expectations that it has become a foreign country. Our image of an armed society is conditioned instead by America: or by what we imagine we know about America. It is a skewed image, because (despite the Second Amendment) until recently in much of the US it has been illegal to bear arms outside the home or workplace; and therefore only people willing to defy the law have carried weapons.

In the past two decades the enactment of “right to carry” legislation in the majority of states, and the issue of permits for the carrying of concealed firearms to citizens of good repute, has brought a radical change. Opponents of the right to bear arms predicted that right to carry would cause blood to flow in the streets, but the reverse has been true: violent crime in America has plummeted.

There are exceptions: Virginia Tech, the site of the 2007 massacre of 32 people, was one local “gun-free zone” that forbade the bearing of arms even to those with a licence to carry.

In Britain we are not yet ready to recall the final liberty of the subject listed by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England as underpinning all others: “The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” We would still not be ready to do so were the Mumbai massacre to happen in London tomorrow.

“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India,” Mahatma Gandhi said, “history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” The Mumbai massacre is a bitter postscript to Gandhi’s comment. D’Souza now laments his own helplessness in the face of the killers: “I only wish I had had a gun rather than a camera.”

Richard Munday is the co-author and editor of Guns & Violence: The Debate Before Lord Cullen

As Freepers say, "Dinosaur Media Watch"

The New York Times, that propaganda organ of the Democrat Party, libs and tranzis, has just hocked it’s headquarters building to stay open a few more months. According to the International Herald Tribune, the Times is mortgaging it’s headquarters to support operating expenses.

Times Co. to borrow against building

The New York Times Company plans to borrow up to $225 million against its mid-Manhattan headquarters building, to ease a potential cash flow squeeze as the company grapples with tighter credit and shrinking profits.

The company has retained Cushman & Wakefield, the real estate firm, to act as its agent to secure financing, either in the form of a mortgage or a sale-leaseback arrangement, said James Follo, the Times Company’s chief financial officer.

As the folks at The Free Republic say, “Dinosaur Media Watch.” New York Times, the bell tolls for thee.

How the Media all but Elected Barack Obama

Here’s a telling examination of the Mainstream Media’s biased support for Obama, the democrat party and liberal positions. I’ve included this in it’s entirety as I found it on the ‘net. Thomas Del Beccaro is the Vice Chairman for the California Republican Party.

How The Media All But Elected Barack Obama

The power of the Main Stream Media (“MSM”), the Internet and cable TV notwithstanding, remains paramount. Over the last 3 years, that power has been on gaudy display. While there were a number of factors that led to Obama’s victory, including Republican deficiencies, the power of the Media all but handed Obama a victory when it should have heralded his doom.
Here are just some of major highlights of the many ways that the Media did just that:

Setting the Table/Talking the Economy Down.
Media bias against the Bush Administration has long been rampant. The MSM has been talking down the Bush economy, literally, throughout his entire term. In fact, “When Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, the unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, inflation was three percent and economic growth was 2.2 percent.” In October of 2004, the Bush “unemployment rate was 5.4 percent, inflation was 2.7 percent, and economists’ consensus forecast for economic growth [was] 3.7 percent.’ However, a study “found that while the national media mainly cheered the Clinton economy in 1996 (85 percent positive), reporters have mostly jeered the Bush economy in 2004 (77 percent negative).”
The 2007/2008 cycle was no different. At the beginning of 2008, FoxNews’ Neil Cavuto pointed out in an AP article that stated: Americans are being subjected to, and I quote “economic water torture.” Ben Stein, in response, stated that “the media has been selling us on fear and recession for months maybe years now. . . I think if we have a recession, if we have a serious recession, a great deal will lie at the media’s feet.”
Indeed, the use of the word recession dominated Media speaking throughout 2007 – even during the 3rd quarter of 2007 when growth was a staggering 4.9%. There was so much talk about a recession (technically 2 quarters of economic contraction – which as of the date of this article still has not occurred) that in 2007 a majority of Americans believed the economy to be bad even though that same majority thought their own economic conditions to be favorable – of course that’s not possible except in people’s perception – a perception the MSM created.
Indeed, so many years of such negative talk about the Bush economy actually had a negative effect (driving down consumer confidence) just as years of your boss telling you you’re no good would have on you. In this case, the public believed the Bush economy was bad and that set the table for demands for change well before the economy actually went bad.

The Edwards Affair

In the fall of 2007, Obama and John Edwards were a tag team bashing the front runner Hillary Clinton. Their strategy was to cut Hillary down to size and then climb over her. At the same time, the MSM was privy to a story about the John Edwards affair/love child. They sat on it. They did not investigate it to any great degree and did not say a peep. Keep in mind that Gary Hart had to get out of the race in 1988 over an affair outed by the Media. No such Media effort this time. No. No. They wanted this election to much.
The New York Times, on the other hand, published a ludicrous story about an alleged John McCain affair – a story devoid of real facts. McCain yes – Democrats no.
If the MSM had outed Edwards in November/December of 2007, then Hillary would have had one less opponent, the story would have taken up at least a week, Obama would have been out of the news and Hillary may well have won. Don’t believe me? Ask Hillary.
Overlooking Fannie Mae
The housing crisis was an outgrowth of a bad federal program that distorted the housing market. The program was started under Democrat Jimmy Carter and put on steroids under Bill Clinton. It was promoted by the Democrat run Fannie Mae. The Democrats blocked reform by McCain and others in 2005 and Fannie Mae contributed heavily to Obama and the other Democrats who blocked reform.
Prior to 2008, that was considered corruption and a scandal worth running a Party out of Congress. After all, the Foley scandal was evidence of Republican corruption and worthy of countless stories down the stretch. That was one guy’s terrible acts that were projected onto an entire Party.
This time, however, it was a scandal that cost the country trillions and an entire party got a free pass from the MSM and worse yet, convinced America that it was a Republican scandal. That alone should have been cause for the Democrats to lose control of Congress, instead it was used against Republicans by Obama and his Media.

Pillaging Palin.
Sarah Palin has the highest approval rating of any Governor in the nation. She earned it by fighting corruption and making government work. Contrast that with the Fannie Mae saga. Yet, the MSM treated here like a pariah unlike any politician in history. The Media went after her daughter’s story with all the class of the Enquirer (the mag that outed Edwards – the far bigger story the MSM ignored in favor of a candidate’s daughter – hitherto untread ground) and drove Palin’s national approval ratings into the ground.
Contrast that with the Joe Biden coverage. Biden, of course, makes more gaffes than any 20 politicians – yet he was given a free pass as Joe being Joe.

Jumping on Joe the Plumber.
So there he was, minding his own business when he was approached and asked a question. So what is more important, the question of a Presidential candidate? Or the background of person who is 1 in 250,000 million that are interested in the candidates? The Media thought the latter and we knew more of Joe the Plumber in 3 days than we did Obama. And just what do you think the MSM will do to Obama’s detractors after the election?

Praising and Protecting Obama
The Media ran more stories about Obama, they ran better stories about Obama and they avoided serious questions about Obama.
As for the stories they avoided to protect him, there are simply too many examples that fall under this category- but I shall give it the ole’ college try:

Why didn’t the Media investigate and highlight:

1. Obama’s overseas internet fundraising which was wildly illegal?

2. Who funded Obama’s stay at Harvard?

3. What Obama was doing at Columbia in the early 80s;

4. The full extent of the Bill Ayers relationship;

5. Why Obama employed ex-Farrahkan employees;

6. Why the SF Chronicle didn’t trumpet Obama’s coal remarks;

7. Why the LA Times withheld the Khalidi tape;

8. Whether anyone else was at Rev. Wright’s church during those 20 years, heard his hatred and watched Obama hear it as well;

9. Why did Obama’s school transcripts from Indonesia designate him a Muslim?

10. Where Obama was really born;

11. Whether Obama really wrote his own books – which are not written in his manner of speaking whatsoever;

12. Why Obama said Wright’s sermons were too spicy which led Obama to cancel Wrights appearance at the opening to his campaign; and

13. Why Obama gave Wright $23,500 in 2006.

Keep in mind that Trent Lott was hounded out of leadership because he made one offhanded comment about Strom Thurmond’s presidential run (“the nation would have been better off if you won”) at a birthday party for his friend who was 100 years old. They said the comment was racially insensitive (even though Thurmond gave up his segregationist views and even though Robert Byrd can stay in the Senate after being in the KKK) and ran stories until Republicans succumbed and Lott was gone. Obama, on the other hand, could fund a racist and the Media could look the other way.
Beyond that, why didn’t the Media ask Obama countless policy questions such as:

1. How 95% of people can get an income tax cut when only 54% of people pay income taxes? or

2. Exactly what budget cuts you claim to have set out to offset your $1 trillion in new spending?

Rather than ask him those obvious questions, or any one of countless others such as Obama’s true Palestinian leanings, the Media glorified Obama like no other candidate in American History – actually covering stories using the word ‘Messiah.’

This Race Is Over.

The MSM designated 2008 the Year of the Democrat early in 2007. There was no question in their minds that a Democrat was going to be President. That narrative remained the storyline throughout 2008 and then morphed into claims that the race was over a month in advance because the turnout for Obama would be huge. Actually, voter turnout was not higher than 2004. They didn’t need facts, however, and instead – they began running stories of Obama’s transition team and his cabinet in October. Inevitability was their mantra.
~~~~~~~
Consider, if you will, the totality of all of those issues above. In the past, candidates were felled with a single arrow. The Media, however, has sheilded Obama from countless arrows and built him up into a myth before he has accomplished a single thing of import. They well knew what they were doing. The net effect of all of the above was the desired effect – making a Democrat the presumptive winner – long before the voters had the audacity to chime in.
If Republicans are to win again at the nation level, they need to understand that the Media has that much power and worse yet, they are willing to use it shamelessly. In sum, long before 2012, Republicans better start working on an entirely new way of reaching voters.

A Journalist View on Media Bias.

Michael S. Malone writes in an editorial on ABC New’s website that, “the traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game — with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The Fourth Estate, the Media at large, has a planned part to play in the conduct of this nation. The original concept by the creators of the Constitution was to develop an extra-governmental watch-dog for the benefit of the people. The Fourth Estate has, in the words of Sean Hannity, died. Killed by the raw, unabashed bias of the media for liberal politics and the mad rush to elect Barack Obama. As Malone writes, the demise of journalism was not so much by the lack of reportorial efforts, but the restrictions imposed by the editors and publishers of the media. Here is an extract of Malone’s editorial.

Media’s Presidential Bias and Decline

Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why

Column By MICHAEL S. MALONE

Oct. 24, 2008 —

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game — with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer,” because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I’m cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).

My hard-living — and when I knew her, scary — grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I’ve spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a “journalist,” you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Malone continues…

The Presidential Campaign

But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass — no, make that shameless support — they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather — not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake — but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far — such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain’s daughter’s MySpace friends — can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side — or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer — when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

And finally, comments concerning “Joe the Plumber.”

Joe the Plumber

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it’s because we don’t understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide — especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50/50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes & and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain’s. That’s what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I’m still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren’t those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don’t see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn’t; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Malone’s conclusion is that the editors of the various print and electronic media have deliberately restrained commentary and criticism about Obama and his liberal, socialist goals and tactics, while unleashing the wolves against McCain, Palin and conservatives at large. Malone’s editorial is a telling indictment against the current state of the Mainstream Media, the lack of ethics and in general, condemnation of Journalism as it is currently practiced.

For the full article, go here.