(The online piece is dated Dec. 31, but the article appeared in the NYT print edition yesterday.)

Of course, the modern day Ministry of Truth – the mainstream media – does this all the time.  As do nearly all politicians, especially during election cycles. 

Revisionist history:  it’s what’s for breakfast.

Here’s an excerpt from his opening:

The Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1949 and lasted until the Reagan Administration. In 1985, the FCC issued a report. According to the Museum of Broadcast Communication, the report said the Doctrine was stifling debate:

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

The Democrat Congress, in the face of a report saying they might be violating the First Amendment, voted the Fairness Doctrine into law in 1987. Reagan squashed it with a veto. Thus, Rush Limbaugh and talk radio was born.

[end excerpt]

Thank God for Reagan, ay?  Wtih NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, the NYT et al in the tank for the Dems and the hard left – 90% of the staff at these “mainstream” media orgs are registered Democrats and many are clearly unable or unwilling to hide their bias – conservative talk radio (and FNC) is really all we conservatives have for the airing of conservative/Republican platforms and ideas.

It is truly amazing that even with a multitude of network media and AM and FM radio channels, the Democratic leadership wants to force conservative talk radio to give equal airtime to liberal/left views.  Apparently they really cannot stand to let conservative broadcasters and citizens talk freely.

On a personal note, I listen to Laura Ingraham every morning on my drive to work.  If half her show had to be devoted to the voicing of liberal, leftist, George Soros and Bill Moyers type ranting, I wouldn’t listen.

For your information, here are the names of people who have either come out in favor of The Fairness Doctrone or have said they think conservative talk radio needs to be shut down:  John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).

Here’s the opening:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

Read the rest when you have the time.

Hat Tip:  The Venerable Mr. Crum (thanks, honey!)

(The premis is a joke. Didn’t anyone see Obama’s eyes darken and veins swell during the debate? At one point I thought he was going to pop his jaw out of joint while waiting for McCain to finish. And what he lacks in temper-mental-ness, Michelle MORE than makes up for.)

(Plus: I kind of like McCain’s grumpy old man routine when he’s had his fill of the crap on The Hill. The man’s got some fire; so what?)

Hat Tip:  All American Blogger

…Seton Motley’s talk on Media Bias and the unFairness Doctrine (sponsored by the Media Research Center)…clip after clip of such biased “reporting” (commentary and emoting) that one is heartily laughing and throughly appalled all at once…

…Chris Matthews (MSNBC), Keith Olbermann (ditto), Brian Williams (NBC), Ann Curry (ditto), John Roberts (CNN), Campbell Brown (ditto), Charlie Gibson (ABC), Terry Moran (ditto) and more…

…the observation that some so-called journalists and major media outlets are now eschewing ratings and “sacrificing the bottom line to ideology”…sacrificing viewers (do they say “good riddance”?) in order to push their increasingly obvious agenda…

…the concept of Bias by Omission (what is not reported that should be)…

…the three upcoming vacancies on the FCC (February) and who will seat them (McCain or Obama) and do the vetting…

…the new “code words” for the Fairness Doctrine that are springing up in activist organizations posing as non-partisan groups:  “localism,” “media democracy,” “media reform,” “universal access”…which you can see in action here…

…the effect the Fairness Doctrine (and other limits on media) would likely have:  the mass migration of conservative talk radio personalities to satellite radio, increased internet podcasting, vlogging (blogging via video clips), and other New Media forums/outlets…

…a comment by a young mother in attendance that Nickolodeon attempts political indoctrination of children via their “kid reporters” (who covered the DNC, but not the RNC)…

MSNBC reports thousands are cancelling their subscriptions to Jan Wenner’s weekly celeb rag over its “Babies, Lies & Scandals” cover slamming Sarah Palin. From the story:

“I’m hearing it’s 5,000, maybe more,” says one well-placed source in the industry. Another source claimed that as many as 10,000 readers have already cancelled their subscriptions. A spokesperson for Wenner Media, which publishes Us, says “it is completely false that we are losing 10,000 subscribers.” As for the 5,000 estimate, the spokesperson only said “that is false, too,” but wouldn’t comment further.

Five thousand might not seem like a large number at first glance, but it’s significant in the context of Us’ printing schedule. The magazine goes to press Monday night, which means subscribers don’t receive their issues until Friday or Saturday. In other words, the cancellations are coming from subscribers who, in many cases, haven’t even gotten their hands on the actual issue.

“When Us went to print Monday night, it looked like the ticket was falling apart,” says one magazine editor. “They went to print thinking Palin was dead in the water, and their mistake was thinking everyone who reads Us is a Democrat, when they’re not. Readers are loyal, but the base of a political party is more loyal. They don’t need to read the magazine when there’s so much press around it to know to be upset.”

Some excerpts if you choose not to click through:

I have never seen, and I admit that I could never have imagined, such shameful, out-of-control, frenzied, angry, condescending, and pathetic journalistic malpractice. The ignorant assault on Palin’s accomplishments and experience, the breathless careless airing of deranged rumors about her private life, the staggeringly indecent mistreatment of her teenage daughter in a difficult time, the ill-informed piling on about the vetting process, the self-intensifying circle of tisking nodding heads utterly detached from a straightforward political event, have been amazing and eye-opening…

The spectacle reveals a deep rot at the heart of the political press, and has been among the most shameful chapters in the history of modern American journalism. Not everyone has joined in, of course, but essentially all of the important institutions of our political press have played their part in one way or another…

…the treatment she has received is not what just any VP candidate would get, and the attitude and assumptions underlying this week’s amazing assault raise very troubling questions about the cream of the crop of political reporters. They have shown themselves to be too insulated and too solipsistic to help the public better understand our politics, and too self-important to report on events as they happen. This is far more than media bias. Let us hope it is a passing episode.

Just to be clear, I rarely read/watch any of these.  And when I do, it is with a critical eye and ear.  These newspapers and media channels have become positively smarmy in their coverage (eg what we’ve seen this week with coverage of the pregnancy of Palin’s teenage daughter).  They are overtly biased and downright rabid in pursuit of the political agendas of their editorial staff and/or respective publishers. 

In short, they are not to be trusted.  Primarily because they claim to HAVE no bias, which is so laughable it ends the whole debate right there.  I’d rather read/watch a biased account from a publication/station that makes no attempt to hide the political views of its editors/producers than read/watch a biased account from a publication that claims to be neutral. 

In the first case, I know what I’m getting and can more easily separate the wheat from the chaff.  In the second case, well…  I can’t even take them seriously enough to read/listen to their sensational, fundamentally dishonest headlines and story lead-ins.