Ward Churchill fired, MSM carries his water

From Hot Air:

U of C’s president recommended that they fire him — for plagiarism and fabricating data, remember, not for his politics — back on May 30 so it’s a fait accompli that the axe will fall. In so doing, the university rids itself of a PR disaster and “Chutch” finally gets the role he was born to play, that of the truth-speaking “brown person” whose dissent the man just can’t handle. Win/win.
...
Update: The school president and head of the board of regents went out of their way afterwards to emphasize that it was his ethical lapses that sunk him, not his political views. The AP headline: “Professor fired for 9/11-Nazi comparison.”

Nope...no liberal media bias!

Quote of the day

BEVERAGE ALERT! Put down your drink pronto. You have been warned! From Newsbusters:

Most of Dan Rather's pontifications on today's "Morning Joe" rolled off my back, as I flipped between his performance and that of Tiger Woods over the closing holes at Carnoustie.

But something made me sit up and take notice. At 8:34 A.M. EDT, Rather suddenly blurted out: "I'm big on personal responsibility." And yes, he managed to do so without laughing.

Oh. My. God (insert deity du jour here).

This is the same guy who put demonstrably fake documents on the air in his bid to bring down Bush a few weeks before the presidential election of 2004, then stood by as Mary Mapes and three other high-level executive henchmen took the fall, then just last year continued to stand by the since debunked "fake but accurate" story? Dan freakin' Rather was trying to convince us that he's all about "personal responsibility"?

I am marking on my calendar that Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 1:50 p.m. EST, I have officially seen everything.

Big Dem donor is a "staunch Republican" in eyes of reporter

In the spirit of Bubba, I opine that "it depends on the meaning of the words 'staunch' and 'Republican'"! From Michelle Malkin:

Great catch here by Warner Todd Huston at Newsbusters on a Chicago Sun-Times reporter’s magical transformation of a big Democrat contributor into a “staunch Republican.” Presto change-o:

Why is it that every time the MSM writes a story about a supposedly “staunch Republican” who is vocally supporting the opposing Party, we have to wonder of its veracity? Maybe it’s because there always seems to be a few little problems with the claim of “staunchness” on the part of the MSM’s favored Party hopper du jour? And in this case, the Chicago Sun-Times story titled “GOP lawyer sold on Dems” by Jennifer Hunter, we have no better assurances than we ever do that the claimed “staunch Republican” is either very “staunch” or very “Republican.”

Sun-Times writer Hunter dug up a supposedly “staunch Republican” named Jim Ronca, a trial lawyer from Pennsylvania. Mr. Ronca, claims Hunter, is “certain of one thing: He is not going to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election.”

But there is more than that. He also says he’ll financially support Democrats, and he makes this announcement as if this is somehow an earth shattering rebuke to the GOP, or so the Sun-Times wishes us to believe.

Here is the kicker from Hunter’s story:

“I’m not only going to vote Democratic, I’m going to financially support the Democrats,” Ronca said after a luncheon forum of the American Association for Justice, featuring Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden. “The Republicans in Washington are an embarrassment.”

Judging from his public donation record, though, this “staunch Republican” also apparently believes that Republicans everywhere else are an “embarrassment,” too. Check out the majority of his political contributions:

$1,000 Harris Wofford (Democrat, PA) 6/22/1994
$250 Charles Oberly (Democrat, PA) 10/3/1994
$500 Edward Kennedy (Democrat, MA) 11/16/1995
$250 Stewart Greenleaf (Republican, PA) 12/29/1999
$250 Patrick Casey (Democrat, PA) 6/3/2000
$500 Ron Klink (Democrat, PA) 6/13/2000
$500 Ron Klink (Democrat, PA) 9/15/2000
$500 Arlen Specter (Republican, PA) 11/5/2001
$500 Allyson Schwartz (Democrat, PA) 3/30/2004
$2,000 John Kerry (Democrat, MA) 5/27/2004
$500 Allyson Schwartz (Democrat, PA) 8/23/2005
$1,000 Bob Casey (Democrat, PA) 9/13/2006
$500 Bob Casey (Democrat, PA) 9/30/2005
$500 Bruce Braley 9/5/2006

Conservatives on the Internet asked Hunter to explain. Her reaction? A column complaining about: 1) how mean the Internet watchdogs are; 2) how readers should blame her editor, not her; and 3) how one registered Republican just decided he’s supporting Hillary, so no one should complain about her embarrassingly inaccurate description of Ronca as a “staunch Republican.”

The thanks you get...

Is it possible that Republicans are fed up with Bush and the party's current "leaders" to the point that they're leaving the party? Of course it is! But to define a Democrat trial lawyer who has been giving the majority of his money to Democrats before Bush got elected as a "staunch Republican" is disingenuous and a bastardization of the English language that ol' Bubba can appreciate.

This is a dishonest tactic often seen with the left: they pretend to be Republicans or disenfranchised former Republicans so as to give themselves a level of credibility to which they are not due. No self-respecting Republican would vote for any of the Marxists masquerading as moderate Democrats, even if he hated Bush and other Republicans so badly that he's counting down the days until January 20, 2009.

Arafat died of AIDS

Karma...it's not just for breakfast anymore. God forgive me, but this made me laugh harder than Bill Clinton does whenever taking an oath (marital oath, oath of office, oath to tell the truth in court, etc.). From Moonbattery:

It's official: terrorist Nobel Peace Prize–winner Yasser Arafat died of AIDS. As Mark Steyn notes, this wasn't a big surprise to everyone:

[Arafat having died of AIDS was] pretty much an open secret in diplomatic circles. I'm in Madrid at the moment, and it prompted many knowing chortles among political types I mentioned it to today, along with fond reminiscences about Yasser's corps of hunky blond Scandinavian bodyguards — an odd bunch of chaps to find in Ramallah, but presumably they were doing the jobs Palestinians won't do. (Although I bet the Nobel prize committee would do it! - Ed.)

James Lewis observes that the Western media must have known all about it, but kept it quiet for fear of damaging the postmortem reputation of their favorite terrorist. He accuses Arafat of being a Typhoid Mary of AIDS, knowingly spreading the deadly disease as he indulged his homosexual lusts. This would hardly be out of character for a malignant narcissist like Arafat, who has made it obvious that other humans exist only for his own pleasure and enrichment; their suffering means nothing. Look what he did to Israelis with his terror wars, and to Palestinians by deliberately holding them in poverty, resolutely scuttling any chance of peace and squirreling away Western aid in his own Swiss bank accounts.

This is the kind of guy who gets awarded the Nobel Peace Prize nowadays, thanks to moonbattery.

What do the bloodthirsty camelhumping jihadists who idolzed him think of such un-Islamic (and punishable by death) behavior? Prediction: "It's a Zionist lie! Let's riot and blow stuff up! Le-le-le-le-le-le-le-le-le-le!"

Bill Richardson's "playful" gay slur

From the Seattlestan fishwrap:

Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson said Thursday his use of a Spanish word that some contend is a slur against homosexuals was meant to be playful but apologized to anyone who was offended.
With critics revisiting the statement he made on a radio program a year ago, Richardson questioned the timing of their comments.

"My record is the strongest among the presidential candidates on gay rights issues and I'm puzzled by the timing of this. When it happened a year ago, nobody seemed to think it was terribly important. Now it surfaces," he told The Associated Press in an interview.

"It's probably a sign from other campaigns that they are little worried about me," he said.

Yeah, those impressive polling numbers (3%) have Shrillary, Osamabama, and Silky Pony quaking. Continuing:

Richardson, a Hispanic and the governor of New Mexico, was a guest on Don Imus' syndicated radio program on March 29, 2006. Imus, who later lost his job over making racial comments, jokingly said one of his staffers suggested Richardson was "not really Hispanic."

Richardson replied in Spanish that if the staffer believes that, then he is a "maricon."

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation says the word means "faggot" in Spanish.

In a statement this week, Richardson said that in the Spanish he grew up speaking, "the term means simply 'gay,' not positive or negative."

He told the AP on Thursday: "It was a playful exchange between me and Don Imus that was not intended to demean anybody, but if I offended anybody, I apologize."

A few observations, if I may:

1. The lesson here is clear: if you're going to slur someone from a P.C. "protected" group, just do it in Spanish. ¡Muchos gracias!

2. "Macaca" moment? Oops...wrong party. The MSM's got little to say about it beyond this. But that's different, right?

3. Richardson was "playfully" saying "faggot", which I was unaware could be done. This will no doubt come as a huge surprise to Ann Coulter.

4. Someone doubts Richardson's Latino "street cred", and Richardson calls that person a queer...but he didn't mean it in a "positive or negative" way. Right.

5. The left says that gays are fine and dandy, then they smear anyone they think or imply might be gay. Geez, pick a talking point and stick to it, will ya?

Quote of the day

This is juicy in several different yummy flavors! Get this, from Newsbusters:

Thursday’s edition of "Good Morning America" featured a Diane Sawyer anecdote that revealed the low opinion Americans have of journalists. After wrapping up a segment on people who avoid jury duty, the ABC co-host recounted the "hurtful" experience she had in a courtroom:
[Link to video]

[Wrap up of segment on getting out of jury duty.]

Diane Sawyer: "You know, I wanted to sit on a jury once and I was taken off the jury. And the judge said to me, 'Can, you know, can you tell the truth and be fair?' And I said, 'That's what journalists do.' And everybody in the courtroom laughed. It was the most hurtful moment I think I've ever had."

I don't know what's funnier: the jury's laughter (and laugh they should), or that Dim Diane was clueless and naive enough to think that normal Americans hold her and her MSM brethren in such high esteem.

We should embrace the Fairness Doctrine?

Many of the points below have been made here by me and commenters, but this is a good way to tie all the points together. From Bruce Chapman:

Liberals are hailing a report that calls for federal regulations to end the "structural imbalance in political talk radio." Two think tanks, the Center for American Progress and the Free Press, complain that more than 90 percent of the programs on talk radio feature conservative hosts and themes while only 10 percent are "progressive."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has promised to examine the report's recommendations for possible legislation and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., says flatly, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."

That really is a good, old-fashioned attitude, all right. But under the so-called Fairness Doctrine that the Federal Communications Commission pursued until 1987, many broadcasters observed that government regulation actually stifled the free market in opinion and effectively politics to little-watched schedules on Sunday mornings. It was known informally as "the public affairs ghetto." Stations presented only as much public debate as they needed to secure renewal of their public licenses.

But the new think tank study insists that talk radio is "imbalanced" and that the imbalance is due largely to the preferences of large radio conglomerates that are run by middle-aged white men. They demand that the government step in and break up the big radio chains and require as much progressive programming as conservative.

At this point Republicans, perhaps surprisingly, are rubbing their hands and hoping for a fight on the Fairness Doctrine. They think the threats from liberal legislators will backfire, helping to unite and activate the nation's 50 million or so talk radio listeners, most of them conservatives, and get them to the polls.

But the right could be making a mistake. Instead of opposing a new "Fairness Doctrine," perhaps conservatives should embrace it -- providing, that is, that the new policy is extended to all media, not just talk radio. (Do I notice some "progressives" throwing down their papers in disgust?)

Let's start with that most public of federal broadcast entities, National Public Radio. Increasingly, its sponsors range from foundations with an ideological ax to grind to law firms and national teachers unions. Conservatives find that stories they care about just don't make it onto NPR schedules. When the rare conservative gets invited to participate on an NPR issues panel, somehow there are two or three liberals facing him, with a liberal host recognizing the speakers.

Next, the new Fairness Doctrine should apply to television, including not just PBS, but also CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, as well as the FOX channel. When newscasters seek legally required balance on a given issue, let's see if they can be persuaded to find the most articulate conservative -- not the most egregious and unpopular -- to reply to the liberal voice.

In addition to cable broadcasting, the new Fairness Doctrine also should reach into the press. I know print media have always been exempt, but, hey, judicial precedents change. Newspapers and news magazines not only use the public mails to ship some of their goods (often at subsidized rates), but they also run their delivery trucks over public roads and park their corner coin-boxes on public sidewalks. The current philosophy of government seems to be, if it moves, the government has a say in it, so why should newspapers get away with sitting in aloof Olympian judgment on everyone else?

It is never going to happen, you say. Well, OK, but let's just open up the fairness issue as wide as possible and see where the debate takes us.

It should be exciting, especially when we have congressional hearings that extend the concept of political and cultural "fairness" still further -- to Hollywood.

Or maybe the left would be smart to drop the matter altogether.

"Smart" and "left" should rarely go in the same sentence, Bruce.

"Al Gore And NBC: Birds Of A Feather"

Abso-freakin'-lutely awesome piece from Investors Business Daily (via CNN):

Politics: Was what Al Gore called "the largest global entertainment event in all of human history" also the largest in-kind political contribution? And where's the Fairness Doctrine when you need it?

Considering that here in the U.S. the Peacock Network's three-hour Gore infomercial on global warming lost out in the ratings to "Cops" and "America's Funniest Home Videos," Gore's claim may be open to question. Live Earth, in fact, may have been America's funniest home video. Ever. (Ouch! - Ed.)

But thanks in large part to the 75 hours of free airtime that NBC gave Gore on its various stations, starting with NBC and including CNBC, Bravo, the Sundance channel, Universal HD and Telemundo, Gore may now be the 800-pound gorilla this political season.

Gore insists he's not running for president. Yet, as we have wondered before, why would a man who insists that global warming is the biggest threat to mankind, bigger than nuclear terror, not want control of the reins of a major world polluter and chief resister to Kyoto?

Dan Harrison, an NBC corporate senior vice president, called the Gore effort "an initiative we believe in" -- the "we" presumably including corporate parent General Electric. (NYSE:GE) Yet he insisted: "I don't think climate change is a political issue."

From the other side of his mouth, Harrison opined: "If it's a political issue, it's whether the political will exists to address that change. We know we need to do something, and this is a way to heighten awareness."

So he considers it NBC's mission to generate that political will in an election cycle in support of a man who once ran for president.

NBC and GE have other interests in hyping climate change. Let's not forget GE is the parent of NBC and stands to make a wad of cash from selling alternative energy products from wind turbines to solar panels to those compact fluorescent bulbs containing mercury.

So when Gore prances on stage to demand we stop building coal-fired plants, that's music to GE's corporate ears.

NBC's Ann Curry certainly thinks global warming is a political issue. During prime-time coverage, she almost got down on her knees to beg the jolly green giant to run for the White House.

Interviewing Gore from the site of the concert in New Jersey, Curry gushed:

"A lot of people want me to ask you tonight if you're running for president. And I know what you're answer is gonna be, believe me. I gotta ask you though. After fueling this grass-roots movement, if you become convinced that without you there will not be the political will in the White House to fight global warming to the level that is required, because the clock is ticking, would you answer the call? Would you answer the call, yes or no?"

Certainly Gore thinks global warming is a political issue, appearing earlier this year before Democrat-controlled House and Senate committees pleading for action. During his opening statement before the House, he famously said: "The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor."

After Gore's testimony, a better course of action would have been to ask for a second opinion.

When a conservative appears on talk radio, liberals cry for the Fairness Doctrine. Seventy-five free hours for Archbishop Gore's Church of Climate Change? Not a peep.

Nope...no liberal media bias!

Coulter's latest flap, but she fires back

By now, many of you have heard that just a couple of months or so after jokingly (though in p#sspoor taste) referring to the Breck Girl as "fa&&ot", the mean ol' beanpole Ann Coulter wished a painful death on the beloved Silky Pony. She said "If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

Wow. Hard to defend that, huh? Well, not really, once you look at the entire line that lead up to it. While speaking to Chris Cuomo on Good Morning America, the following exchange took place (courtesy of Newsbusters):

Coulter: "Though about the same time, Bill Maher said– And, by the way I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn’t talk about him because you could go into rehab for using that word."

Cuomo: "You said you were joking. You were joking."

Coulter: "Oh, yeah. Yeah. I wouldn't, I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean. (Now THAT is funny! "Not funny haha, funny queer...mmm-hmmm!" - Ed.) But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So, I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

I mentioned at The Conservative Manifesto that Coulter should have finished her quote with "I mean, if Bill Maher can say something like that about Dick Cheney and catch no grief from you or your leftist ilk, Chris, then I'm afraid you're going to have to immunize me from any grief, too." Not that this would have resulted in any less dishonesty from the left, but it still would have done some good.

At any rate, Coulter has had enough and has struck back with both barrels blazing. Her retort is here (please read it...you must read it!), and a couple of excerpts follow:

The Edwards campaign is apparently still running low on donations, so this week they went back to their top fundraiser: me.
...
Say, did any TV host ever surprise Al Franken, Bill Maher or Arianna Huffington with a call by the wife of someone they've made nasty remarks about? How about a call to John Edwards from the wife of a doctor he bankrupted with his junk-science lawsuits?
...
The usual nut Web sites posted a zillion denunciations of my appearance on "Good Morning America" immediately after I appeared Monday morning. But it didn't occur to any of them to simply lie about what I had said. No, it took them nearly 36 hours to concoct a version of that quote that included the Edwards part, but not the Maher part, or what English language speakers call: "the point."

By tomorrow it will be: "Ann Coulter tried to kill John Edwards on 'Good Morning America'!"
...
Let me also quote from campaign consultant Bob Shrum's book "No Excuses":

"(Kerry) was even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else -- that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before -- and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."

Apparently every time Edwards began a story about his dead son with "I've never told anyone this before," everyone on the campaign could lip-sync the story with him.
...
John Edwards injects his son's fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how he refuses to inject his son's fatal car accident into his campaign.
...
Manifestly, I was not making fun of their son's death; I was making fun of John Edwards' incredibly creepy habit of invoking his son's tragic death to advance his political career -- a practice so repellant, it even made John Kerry queasy.

I'm a little tired of losers trying to raise campaign cash or TV ratings off of my coattails, particularly when they use their afflictions or bereavement schedules to try to silence the opposition. From now on, I'm attacking only serious presidential candidates, like Dennis Kucinich.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

Alter defends Obama's outreach to black racist

Tucker Carlson takes leftard Jonathan Alter behind the woodshed on this one. Jonathan Alter, hopelessly leftist "editor" from Newsweak (you know, those guys who made up the whole Koran-flushing story?), tries to whitewash NYC Councilman Charles Barron. Barron, a former Black Panther and big time apologist for Zimbabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe (who starves his own people), is remembered for his "I wanna slap Whitey" remarks.

Anywho, Alter gets schooled, as seen here on Newsbusters:

Understanding fellow, that Jonathan Alter . . .

On this afternoon's "Tucker Carlson" on MSNBC, the eponymous host mentioned that Barack Obama had travelled to NYC to seek the support of Charles Barron of Brooklyn. Carlson knows Barron well, the NYC Councilman being a frequent guest on Tucker's show. Carlson described Barron as a "pretty straightforward racist, pretty straightforward black nationalist, anti-white character, exactly the kind of person you would not expect Obama to be courting." He then asked guest Jonathan Alter: "What is Obama doing?

SENIOR NEWSWEEK EDITOR JONATHAN ALTER: "Well, I think Obama wants the support of everybody, and I think the question is whether he can have a tent that's actually as big as the United States . . . The whole point of his campaign Tucker is to say "don't judge me by any one of my supporters, I'm trying to get a super-big tent here" . . . I think it would be unfair to hold any of his supporter's politics, you know, hold him accountable for what Charles Barron thinks.

Tucker wasn't buying, and drew the logical analogy.

MSNBC HOST TUCKER CARLSON: If Rudy Giuliani went down and asked David Duke for his support, would you say, "you know, it's unfair to hold Rudy Giuliani accountable for what David Duke said?" No, of course not! You'd write a cover story attacking him. That's a ludicrous point.

ALTER: Charles Barron is not David Duke, so let's not let that slide through, he's not David Duke.

CARLSON: I would say he's pretty close.

ALTER: If he was David Duke, you really wouldn't have him on your show, Tucker. Even you have limits.

CARLSON: No, actually, I don't.
...
Whether Barron is a black David Duke can be debated. But it is beyond cavil that Alter would vociferously condemn a Republican candidate who sought the support of a white leader with views mirroring Barron's.

Score this one for Tucker.

Score, indeed. Alter is typical of what I generally expect to get from the left: a P.C. panderer who speaks before he thinks (since he also "feels" before he thinks). Carlson nailed him with an appropriate analogy, and the best that Alter could muster was "it's not the same thing"...when actually, yeah, it is the same thing.

So, to recap Alter's position: shmoozing with a black racist is "super big-tent outreach", but shmoozing with a white racist would be horrible. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Hamas member works for the Beeb

That would explain why the Beeb was soliciting tips on allied troop locations in Iraq last month, now wouldn't it? From Hot Air:

And just like that, last summer’s controversy over the mixed motives of Arab stringers takes on a repulsive yet exciting new dimension. What’s next? Hizb ut-Tahrir members working for the Guardian?

Despite Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) opposition and per the request of the BBC, the coordinator of government activities allowed a Hamas member who works for the BBC to enter the Gaza Strip last week to assist in efforts to release kidnapped journalist Alan Johnston.

Defense officials told The Jerusalem Post that a week ago, a request came from the BBC asking that a Palestinian employee of the news company who is believed to be a close associate of senior Hamas officials be allowed to enter Gaza.

And to think, I thought the biggest absurdity of the Alan Johnston kidnapping would be Hamas playing the role of hostage negotiator. Exit question one: Why would an infamously left-wing news organization employ members of a genocidal religious fascist group? Hmmm.

LGF asks a valid question: "Can anyone explain to me how this does not violate British law? Because Hamas is an officially proscribed terror group in the UK."

Nope...no liberal media bias! Actually, I can't use that tagline anymore for the Beeb, since they admitted that they are indeed left-wing.

PBS pays for, then spikes, program on "moderate" Muslims vs. terrorism

From Moonbattery:

PBS blew $675,000 of our money on a documentary exploring the difference between peaceful Muslims and the ones who are trying to annihilate our civilization. But when they saw the finished product, PBS execs decided it was "alarmist, overreaching and unfair" — i.e., not sufficiently sympathetic to the terrorist maniacs who are trying to kill us. So they sat on the project, refusing to air it. Instead they ran "fair" material like Bill Moyers' long-winded denunciations of America.

But now Fox News has gotten hold of Muslims Against Jihad, and is going to put it on tonight, hosted by the lovely E.D. Hill. Tune in at 9 PM Eastern.

It came on last night (Sunday, June 24) at 9:00 p.m. EST. Yeah, that Fox News sure is biased, on account of running a PBS story, right?

"PBS execs decided it was 'alarmist, overreaching and unfair'", or in other words, dead-on accurate! Yet another reason (among many) to defund PBS.

"MSM: Major Iraq Offensive Against Al Qaeda Succeeds In Producing 14 Dead US Soldiers, Uncovers 25 Caches of Vietnam Analogies"

Ya gotta love Ace for coming up with this stuff:

What the MSM tells you about the offensive.

What Michael Yon tells you about the offensive.

You make the call.

In entirely unrelated news, reporters donate 9:1 to Democrats and liberal causes over Republicans and conservative causes.

Their political affinities in no way whatsoever color their reportage.

Nope...no liberal media bias.

"Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)"

Journalists are citizens, too, so in and of itself, no big whoop. So just to whom are these purveyors of "unbiased fact-reporting" donating? Glad you asked. From MSNBC:

A CNN reporter gave $500 to John Kerry's campaign the same month he was embedded with the U.S. Army in Iraq. An assistant managing editor at Forbes magazine not only sent $2,000 to Republicans, but also volunteers as a director of an ExxonMobil-funded group that questions global warming. A junior editor at Dow Jones Newswires gave $1,036 to the liberal group MoveOn.org and keeps a blog listing "people I don't like," starting with George Bush, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, the NRA and corporate America ("these are the people who are really in charge").

Whether you sample your news feed from ABC or CBS (or, yes, even NBC and MSNBC), whether you prefer Fox News Channel or National Public Radio, The Wall Street Journal or The New Yorker, some of the journalists feeding you are also feeding cash to politicians, parties or political action committees.

OK, so it sounds like pretty balanced donating going on, doesn't it? Well, not exactly. You have to look a little farther down to get to this nugget:

MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

So out of this sample of 144 journalists who gave, 125 of them (or 87%) gave to Democrats and 17 of them (or 12%) gave to Republicans. While it is true that this is only a sample of journos who donate to politicians (and not inclusive of journos who don't give money), the numbers virtually mimic other polls taken over the years that show roughly 85%-90% of journalists vote Democrat in presidential elections. Continuing:

What changed? First came the conservative outcry labeling the mainstream media as carrying a liberal bias. The growth of talk radio and cable slugfests gave voice to that claim. The Iraq war fueled distrust of the press from both sides. Finally, it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors.

As the policy at the Times puts it: "Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides."

Um, a "false impression that the paper is taking sides"? It's clear from studies like this that the impression is far from "false", people. While our country's MSM sources may not exactly be hanging pictures of "Bush as Hitler" in their newsrooms like the unhinged Beeb does, obviously the American people can see with their own eyes what kind of leftist groupthink occurs in newsrooms across the country.

Beeb's newsroom Godwins itself

From Moonbattery:

Ray Drake of the highly recommended blog Davids Medienkritik was interviewed in an excellent two-part report by the Christian Broadcasting Network on anti-Americanism in the European media.

Though you won't be surprised, you will be appalled. Here's an excerpt:

Polls clearly show that Europeans have turned against America in increasing numbers. You can blame Iraq or George Bush. But it's also true that Europeans have been fed a steady diet of media distortions about America for years.

And if you repeat a distortion long enough, it can become reality.
...
A former BBC journalist says a drawing of Bush as Hitler is hung in the BBC newsroom.

Not that this should surprise anyone, especially since the Beeb admits its own moonbattery. I just wish the left would stop pretending that the Beeb is a legitimate news source, when by their own admission, they're a mouthpiece for the left.

Ohio's Dem governor meets with terrorist organization

Said organization is CAIR. From Hot Air:

On Sunday, June 18 — after the Council on American Islamic Relations was named an unidicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case — Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) spoke at CAIR-OH’s anniversary banquet. He delivered typical banquet boilerplate.

Governor Strickland addressed the crowd of 350 people, saying: “On behalf of all Ohioans, [my wife and I] appreciate your vision to promote justice and mutual understanding. We gather under CAIR-Ohio’s theme this year, ‘American Muslims: Connecting and Sharing,’ to do just that, to connect and share and get to know each other better.”

Governor Strickland also expressed appreciation for “the Muslim traditions of strong family, hard work, and education,” and presented a proclamation honoring CAIR-Ohio’s work.

Hm. No mention of Hamas’ recent efforts to promote a very rough form of justice in Gaza?

As BizzyBlog notes, thus far the press in Ohio hasn’t reported Strickland’s appearance at the CAIR affair. The only place outside a few righty blogs that you can find anything about the appearance is CAIR’s own web site.

Let’s put this in some perspective. CAIR was named as an unidicted co-conspirator in a terrorism case. Various CAIR officials have been named and nabbed in several terror cases. California Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, rescinded an award that her office intended to bestow on a CAIR official when the senator learned of CAIR’s terror connections. Another Democrat, NY Sen. Chuck Schumer, characterized CAIR as part of an international terror network. That was back in 2003, so it’s not like this information is so fresh that Gov. Strickland could have just missed it. And Strickland can’t blame CAIR’s problems on the “Rethuglican noise machine” or anything like that.

The MSM is quieter than a cageful of gerbils in a San Fran pet store. Nope...no liberal media bias!

NY Times giving press coverage to terrorist group

Check it out: Hamas gets space to run an op-ed in the NYT. Then again, considering how the Slimes has done its level best in getting the terrorists tipped off to our intel, this should come as no surprise.

The money quote:

We reject attempts to divide Palestine into two parts and to pass Hamas off as an extreme and dangerous force. We continue to believe that there is still a chance to establish a long-term truce. But this will not happen unless the international community fully engages with Hamas.

Yeah, if you can get past that whole "We are committed to wipe Israel off the map" mission statement and countless suicide bombings over the years, they're just a bunch of peace-loving centrists.

Duke lacrosse fallout

Brilliant column by Thomas Sowell:

The disbarment of Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong should be just the first step in remedying the gross and cynical fraud of last year's "rape" case against Duke University lacrosse players.

Not only is Nifong still liable to civil lawsuits from the three young men whose lives he tried to ruin, and criminal prosecution for his obstruction of justice and making false statements to a judge, there are many other people who disgraced themselves in hyping a lynch mob atmosphere when this case first broke last year.

The New York Times, which splashed these Duke students' pictures on the front page, along with inflammatory charges against them, and went ballistic on its editorial page, carried the story of Nifong's disbarment for prosecuting them on page 16.

The 88 Duke University faculty members who took out a hysterical ad, supporting those local loudmouths who were denouncing and threatening the Duke students, have apparently had nothing at all to say now.

Not only did many Duke University professors join the lynch mob atmosphere, so did the Duke University administration, which got rid of the lacrosse coach and cancelled the team's season, without a speck of evidence that anybody was guilty of anything.

This is one of the few times when Jesse Jackson is speechless, even though he was loudly supporting the bogus "rape" charges last year.

A local civil rights activist even had the gall to accost the mother of one of the accused students at Nifong's disbarment hearings to say that she still believes they were guilty.

The sad and tragic fact is that the civil rights movement, despite its honorable and courageous past, has over the years degenerated into a demagogic hustle, promoting the mindless racism they once fought against.

Although the committee that disbarred Michael Nifong said many things that needed to be said, they muddied the waters by saying that Nifong may have deceived himself before he deceived others.

Nothing that District Attorney Nifong did suggests that he ever thought these players were guilty or that he ever intended to bring them to trial.

The photo lineup presented to the stripper was so completely different from standard procedure that it was virtually an invitation for a judge to throw out any identification resulting from it -- and without that identification, there was no case.

This was not about winning a case. It was about winning an election.

Nifong could not allow a standard lineup to be used to have the accuser identify her alleged attackers, or else her unreliability would have been exposed early on, depriving him of a case to use to get the black vote in his election.

There is not the slightest reason to believe that Nifong was deceived or mistaken. He was not some kid fresh out of law school. He had decades of experience as a prosecutor. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Nor was the New York Times a naive ingenue in these matters. It had backed Al Sharpton's fraudulent accusations of rape in the Tawana Brawley case, which had the same politically correct elements of a black woman accusing white men of rape.

Nor were the 88 Duke faculty members who promoted a lynch mob atmosphere naive. Most were from departments promoting the "race, class, and gender" vision of victimhood.

This case served their purposes. That trumped any question about whether the charges were true or not.

Don't expect any of these people to recant or apologize. But be aware of how wide and how deep the moral dry rot goes.

That such people are teaching students at an elite university is a chilling thought. That they promote a campus atmosphere where political correctness trumps the search for truth is painful.

That such attitudes and such atmospheres are not peculiar to Duke University, but are common on elite college campuses from coast to coast is a time bomb with the potential to destroy individuals and ultimately undermine the whole society.

Personally, I think these Duke boys ought to do like Richard Jewell and sue the MSM outlets (especially the NYT) for their over-the-top piling-on. It worked for Jewell, though considering how the MSM worked this Duke case, one sees that the MSM learned nothing from the Jewell situation.

Beeb fesses up: Yep, we're liberal!

At least they're transparent about it now, so I can justify ignoring them as a credible news source henceforth. Observe:

The BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, has acknowledged the network is biased toward the left, following a report commissioned by the company.

A yearlong probe revealed the corporation especially partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion, according to the London Times.

"It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes," the paper said.

The report cites the danger of BBC programs being undermined by the liberal culture of its staff, who need to challenge their own assumptions more.

"There is a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone," says the report.

It notes staff tend to mimic each other's common left-leaning values.

A seminar on staff impartiality held last year is documented, with officials admitting they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away, but not the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.

No need to fear offending the Christians, since we're not the ones who are gonna go bombing London busses or Madrid trains or anything like that. In closing:

The report also warns that celebrities must not be pandered to and allowed to hijack the BBC schedule, according to the London Telegraph.

It also offers 12 new principles for the corporation to adopt to safeguard objectivity, including:

"Impartiality is no excuse for insipid programming. It allows room for fair-minded, evidence-based judgments by senior journalists and documentary-makers, and for controversial, passionate and polemical arguments by contributors and writers."

A BBC spokeswoman said: "This report is about looking forward and how we are going to face the challenges of impartiality in the modern world."

As WND reported in October, an internal BBC memo revealed senior figures admitted the national news agency was guilty of promoting left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.

The admissions of bias were made at the impartiality summit. Most executives admitted the corporation's representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate.

Who knew that impartiality could be such a "challenge" to journos, huh? Nope...no liberal media bias! Actually...yep, definitely liberal media bias.

NYT surprised that tax cuts led to more revenue

From the Old Gray Hag:

State lawmakers across the country, their coffers unexpectedly full of cash, have been handing out tax cuts, spending money on fixing roads, schools and public buildings, and socking something away for less fruitful years.

Budget surpluses have largely stemmed from higher than expected tax collections — corporate tax revenues alone were 11 percent higher than budget estimates — and booming local economies. There has also been some relief in Medicaid spending, which fell from an 11 percent annual growth rate to something closer to 7 percent in the past few years.

More than 40 states have found themselves with more money than they planned as they wound down their regular sessions. Governors in 23 of those states proposed tax cuts, and a majority of states with surpluses chose to shore up their roads, schools and rainy day funds. For example, lawmakers in Utah agreed to a $1 billion bond act to fix state roads and add lane miles, while in Idaho state spending on education outpaced that on Medicaid for the first time in 20 years.

The extra cash over the last two budget sessions (many states work on a two-year cycle) is at the highest level since 2000, state budget experts say. States, burned by several years of shortfalls, kept their estimates of total revenues on the conservative side and are now reaping plenty.

"Unexpected" and "higher than expected"? Only if you've been living under a rock (or you've been too busy using government moles to leak classified national security information in violation of federal law).

State surpluses at their highest level since 2000? Something's happened since 2000 that promised to increase revenue to the government (and has indeed done so). Could it be...tax cuts? You know, that thing that increases revenue to state and local governments every time it's tried? Nah...couldn't be.

So while the functional economic illiterates at the Big Apple's fishwrap may find the extra revenue inflow "unexpected", those of us who pay attention know otherwise.