MSM In The Tank - Breaking Down the Proof.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5942414&page=1

This post is bound to attract the scorn of the usual suspects who deny any bias whatsoever in the Main Stream Media, and yet view FOX as the Devil's Voice on earth.

If you count yourself among such a group, let me suggest that you at least attempt to assume a position of objectivity and consider the following arguments. If you find flaws in them, have at them, but try, if you can, to do so from a base of rationality rather than bilious partisanship.

The title of the linked article is "Claims Made by Sarah Palin and Joe Biden During VP Debate Not Entirely Accurate."

It should be "Yet Another Shameless Attempt by The Mainstream Media (This Time ABC) to Help Elect Barrack Obama."

A mere six facts were checked, but 5 were cited by Sarah Palin and only 1 by Joe Biden, and that one represented only half of his claim on the topic:



What about the thrust of Palin's comment? Why didn't the ABC Fact Checkers determine if Obama actually voted to raise taxes for families making $42K?

And is this really the only instance where ABC believed it was serving its readers by checking a Biden fact?

Now compare the editorial comments on two checked facts. One that has negative implications for Obama and the other that has the same for Palin:





I suspect the number is more than half, as I feel quite sure ABC would have described it as "less than half" if that had been the case. Let's assume though that the number of times Obama voted for an increase in taxes is less than half - 46 times.

Whether or not 94 would constitute a wild inflation, the point that he is a frequent supporter of increasing taxes is a valid one, but which ABC attempts to assist Obama in deflecting by focusing on Palin's unnecessary exaggeration.

In any case, compare the use of "wildly inflated" to the gratuitous offering of exculpatory evidence that might soften the Biden/Obama gaffe: "While the Illinois senator has clarified this statement several times with further explanation about the conditions that would have to be met before a presidential-level meeting..."

If this sort of contextual observation was not limited to explaining away Obama/Biden gaffes, it might be admirable, but of course, it isn't. Find a similar preface to the introduction of a Palin gaffe. You can't.

Apparently, ABC found it terribly important to call Palin on her mistakenly naming our General in Afghanistan McClellan rather than McKiernan, and yet they had no problem with the fact that despite Biden's aggressive claim that the power/duties of the VP are laid in Article One of the Constitution,



Article II, not Article I defines the powers of the Executive Branch. Article I defines the powers of the Senate and if Biden is right, that it also defines the powers of the VP and he has to acknowledge that VP is at least a creature of both branches -- which is directly in contradiction to his argument.

Article II does, in fact, address the role of the VP and it does address the power of the VP to break a tie in the Senate (not Article I as Joe claimed), but Article I, the fond favorite of Biden, does not proscribe that the VP's only role is to break ties in Senate votes, it tells us a role of the VP is to preside over the Senate.

Admittedly, this is fairly ambiguous, but since when does ambiguity bother liberals?

Anyone who believes in an expansive and interpretive view of the Constitution would be hard pressed to declare that either Article I or II restricts the role of the VP in the Senate to breaking ties.

There may very well have been more Palin gaffes upon which ABC didn't bother to focus, but does anyone really believe that Biden was either guilty of only one gaffe or performed in a 1:5 gaffe ratio with Palin?

If you are a believer of the former, you are beyond intelligent engagement, but if you are believer in the latter, do us the courtesy of laying out your proof because I can cite many more Biden misrepresentations.

The article is devoid of journalistic integrity, and proves, once again, that ABC, among others, is not only giving Obama a soft ride, it's actively assisting him, and yet Liberals insist this but a figment of the Conservative Mind.

The MSM Offenders would have us believe that they, unlike FOX, are truly fair and unbalanced ---What an utter crock!

This wouldn't be so bad except that they are attempting to trade on the remnants of trust the average American has in the MSM to influence the election.

Democracy: The people, not a handful of judges or a cadre of smug, elitist journalists, decide what the best course for their country is.

America is threatening to follow the road to irrelevance that has been followed by the former European powers, and if it does, it will be because of the fuzzy headed, but obviously prevalent, cretinism of Liberals.

Yes, a discussion on the bias of the MSM must lead to a declaration of the threat Liberalism presents to America.