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)…

The upshot?  As stated in the article:  “An analysis of federal election records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 margin over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans.”

American Thinker goes on to list the exact amount of the political contributions by journalists at every main stream media outlet in America.  If you have any doubt about the existence of Media Bias, you need to read the whole article.  (Surprise:  note the numbers @ Fox News Channel – ?!)