The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

This is hardly a shocking revelation to anyone who pays attention to the news on any network beside FOX. Most journalists lean left and despite their best efforts to remain objective their coverage tilts left. That’s why the Washington Post is so desperate for a race riot or anything they can cover that’s damaging to conservatives. I wonder how much these agents of change give to charity in comparison? Hmmm…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

Content-neutral: Two months ago students from the Young America’s Foundation were told to shut up when they started an impromptu version of the National Anthem at the Lincoln Memorial. Evidently the harsh rhetoric of our nation’s National Anthem is offensive to someone. This is another great moment for our United States Park Police.

He’s No Saint: CNN has an article by Ed Henry on the late Senator Ted Stevens who passed away in an airplane crash earlier this week. The headline of the article is “Stevens was no saint but his word was his bond.” Fair enough, but where was this kind of somber analysis of the late Senator Ted Kennedy? If Stevens wasn’t a saint what was Kennedy? Or did Stevens get drunk, drive off the road, and flee the scene with someone drowning in the car as well?

I’m headed up to Atlanta tomorrow to watch the Braves in the post-Chipper era. The Braves third baseman injured himself on a throw to first base a couple of days ago. His ACL requires surgery so it’s possible this is the end of the road for Chipper. We’ll catch two games against the Dodgers and drive back on Sunday.

“The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”

John Adams

Ever since people started reporting on and analyzing the news on the Internet and other new media outside the traditional media outlets, the traditional media has been going through its own version of the Kubler-Ross Five Stages of Grief…

Denial… “This can’t be happening.”

Anger… “Who the hell do these pajama-clad people think they are?”

Bargaining… “Okay. We hate you, so we’ll start doing the same thing.”

Depression… “Our business model sucks and we’re going out of business.”

Acceptance… “Everything will be okay since I can get a federal bailout and have the feds regulate and harass my competition out of business, all in the name of some nebulous public good!”

Fake but accurate: When traditional "journalists" are sure something's true but have no evidence, it's time to go to Kinko's! Image from michellemalkin.com.

Whenever a high-profile blogger gets it wrong, jumps the gun or takes something out of context, the traditional media launches into “I-told-you-so” mode, most recently and notably with the Breitbart/Shirley Sherrod fiasco. However, when one of their own does it, there’s nothing to see (Rathergate).

The traditional media would like nothing better than to consolidate their power in such a way that everyone but the traditional media is held accountable for their actions. I think they call it “accountability journalism,” or what I like to call “baby talk.”

This begs the question: who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Who holds those who wield the sword of accountability accountable? What the traditional media desire is a monopoly on accountability, which is convenient for a demonstrably biased group advancing specific political and ideological agendas. As “gatekeepers” they will ensure the unwashed masses stay outside the gates. Safely inside the gates, the gatekeepers can do whatever the hell they want. Who needs transparency when the gatekeepers are so ethically and morally pure?

Was Breitbart held accountable for posting an out-of-context video? Certainly. Now that the entire video is out and people can see it for themselves they can make their own judgment about it without a monopolistic “accountability” filter designed to tell them what to think.

Fake but accurate: Filmed from multiple angles with hundreds of cell phone cameras recording at the same moment, not one person has come forth with evidence that Tea Partiers screamed racial epithets at black Congressmen who purposely walked the gauntlet to incite the racism that supposedly infuses the Tea Party movement. The accusation may be fake, but the traditional media decided it was accurate so there was no need to verify the veracity of the claims. Now that's accountability journalism!

By the same token, when the media reported with absolute certainty that the N-word was hurled more than a dozen times at black legislators purposely running the Tea Party gauntlet on Capitol Hill, the blogosphere cast serious doubt on this assertion. The traditional media’s reaction? Ignore the evidence and mindlessly repeat a lie since it fits their worldview and narrative.

The traditional media believes the Tea Party is racist, primarily because the Tea Party opposes the first black president’s agenda. In the traditional media narrative, opposition to Obama equals racism. So if A=B is true, then naturally the stuff we make up, C, is true, even if it really didn’t happen.

Rathergate was based on the same thinking. Dan Rather and his colleagues at CBS believed that George W. Bush was a nincompoop and a shirker so they didn’t waste any time double-checking the documents sent to them by a dubious source that helped prove the point. When the documents were shown to be obvious forgeries, Rather and the traditional media circled the wagons. Their final defense? Fake but accurate! I don’t know about you, but I prefer news that’s genuine and accurate.

So, while the traditional media whines and moans about the lack of accountability in the blogosphere, talk radio and Fox News, we’re actually living in a time of hyper-accountability. You can’t publish, post or air anything without someone somewhere holding you to account.

There are obvious drawbacks to this Wild West information age, such as the ease of defamation, but that’s a trade-off I’m willing to make. Information is power, and once concentrated in too few hands it is dangerous.

Don’t be surprised if, any day now, you read that the People’s Republic of Arizona is in the market for nuclear warheads to put an end, once and for all, to illegal immigration on its southern border. After all, it’s the next logical step for the rogue state.

That’s the next logical step? Obviously Navarrette doesn’t have a firm grasp of logic. The only logical next step here is to believe that he’s a blithering idiot. Oh wait… There’s more?!

Brewer just signed SB 1070, a disgraceful anti-immigration and pro-racial-profiling law, to give local and state cops throughout the state the chance to suit up and play border patrol agent. Why shouldn’t she get the chance to suit up and play general?

The Arizona law isn’t about immigration, it’s about “illegal immigration.” How many times do people like Navarette need to be told the difference between illegal and legal immigration. Let me repeat it slowly so Navarett can understand: I-L-L-E-G-A-L. Against the law. Criminal… The fact that Navarette can’t tell the difference and would rather yell “racist” tells me all I need to know. This is the kind of opinion piece that makes you want to gouge your eyes out with popsicle sticks.

Navarette goes on to claim to be “in the know” with border officials and sets up the weak straw man about enforcing the laws that bar companies from hiring illegals. Evidently it’s not racist or anti-immigration to enforce those laws.  What about the illegal immigrants that join gangs and never get jobs? How exactly does cracking down on businesses that hire illegals (which should happen) stop that from happening? I’m sorry. I was thinking logically.

“He polls less favorably for Democrats, and that’s why he’s become a lightning rod,” said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who studies polling. “It’s clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person’s results.”
On Saturday, Dec. 26, for example, Rasmussen’s daily tracking had Obama’s approval at 44 percent, with a disapproval figure of 56 percent. A Real Clear Politics compilation of other pollsters, meanwhile, showed Obama with an average approval figure of 49.5 percent and disapproval of 45.1 percent.

In the 2004 election the Real Clear Politics compilation of other pollsters showed Bush’s approval rating at 49%. On election day Rasmussen had Bush’s approval rating at the correct number of 52%. What many on the left fail to see is that most mainstream polling agencies almost always poll kindly for Democrats. I don’t think that anything sinister is going on; it’s just poor polling. Here’s an example from CNN in April 2004.

The survey, conducted Friday through Sunday, found that among all adults — not just likely voters — only 46 percent approved of Bush’s performance in office — the lowest rating of his presidency in this poll. [emphasis added]

Polls that measure a “survey of adults” are almost always 3-5 points biased toward Democrats. I doubt many Democrats were concerned by CNN’s headline: “Bush Approval Hits New Low in Poll.” Basically the only crime Rasmussen is committing is that he’s accurate and he polls every day. If you don’t like the message, kill the messenger.

The panel included Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, U.S. journalist and author Thomas L. Friedman, Bjorn Lomborg, author of the “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” Hollywood actress and environmental activist Daryl Hannah and former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

None of these people are experts on atmospheric sciences. The panel has two U.N. bureaucrats, an overrated New York Times columnist, an economist, and Daryl Hannah. That’s right! Daryl Hannah is now considered an expert. Was it the time spent on the set of Splash? If she’s an expert on climate change, I’m the king of Montenegro. Simply taking an interest in a topic automatically makes one an expert these days. I guess I’m an expert as well. Thanks CNN for reaffirming my cynicism.

It just seems that in going to few diversely populated cities, she’s purposefully steering clear of minorities. I mean, what author with a $5 million book deal avoids promoting books in large cities? Palin’s curious tour schedule takes me right back to some of the more disturbing displays during last year’s campaign, when people at some campaign rallies at times made racist remarks. This is not to say I believe Sarah Palin is a racist. But she said or did very little to address the racist ugliness around her during the campaign.

Did Hillary Clinton say or do anything about the “racist ugliness” around her during the campaign? This whole “angry racist crowd” is another myth from the 2008 campaign. What’s so sad is that people like Granderson are so willing to believe such sensationalist nonsense. Granderson, who went to a Palin event, obviously didn’t see any racism, otherwise he would have wrote about it. Instead, he says, “I did get a lot of strange looks from the line, which I guess was to be expected. After all, I’m a black man with dreadlocks and, judging by the racial makeup of most of the cities Palin has scheduled for her tour, it doesn’t seem I’m her target audience.” I guess “strange looks” are open for debate. What does a “strange look” look like? I think this observation says more about Granderson than the crowd itself.
Why should Palin visit areas that have no interest in seeing her? Will that make Granderson feel better? McCain made a series of trips to minority areas untouched by previous Republican campaigns and it didn’t help at all. I wonder how much longer the Democrats will get away with this “Republicans are racist” nonsense. On social issues African Americans share more in common with the religious right than with the Democratic party. The Democrats do have an upper hand when it comes to spending money on government programs to supposedly reduce poverty. For those scoring at home the percentage of people living in poverty in the United States was steadily decreasing for decades before the “War on Poverty.” Since the 1960s the U.S. has spent trillions of dollars and the poverty rate has remained unchanged. Here’s one last bit from Granderson:

As a Midwesterner with some Southern roots, I actually have a lot in common with Palin. I’ve hunted with dogs, fished, had a kid in hockey, I go to church on Sundays and, having worked in New York and L.A., I’ve had my fair share of run-ins with elitist, liberal snobs. This is why I am so profoundly disappointed with her. Instead of using her popularity and influence to highlight our similarities and move the nation forward, she has allowed some of the nation’s most painful wounds to be re-opened to advance her career.

Huh? What has Palin done to re-open wounds? Granderson needs to look outside of his soapbox. He’s trapped like many other Americans in a perception soapbox and unable to decipher fact from fiction. Palin’s only crime is being Republican in a political system that has exonerated Democrats from being racist, I guess because Democrats treat minorities like children and come up with programs that ensure their slavery to the state to the detriment of the individual.

“I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes,” Obama told NBC’s Savanah Guthrie. “And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that’s one thing, and if it’s operating as a news outlet that’s another but it’s not something I’m losing sleep over.” [Emphasis added]

Oh really? Does anyone truly believe the that White House would be wasting time on FOX if Obama was completely unconcerned? One thing I think Americans are learning about this young presidency is that he can’t take criticism. By any standard Obama has received the greatest coverage from the press in modern history. Yet, he’s upset with FOX? I can see why the White House holds up CNN as the model of centrist journalism. After all it was CNN’s superstar Anderson Cooper who was making jokes about “teabagging” and Wolf Blitzer “factchecking” a skit on SNL. I can see why the White House loves CNN. Just for the record, George W. Bush never said the word “strategery” and Sarah Palin never said that she could see Russia from her front porch. I didn’t know “factchecking” was necessary for sketch comedy.

Corruption we can believe in!
Maybe what Obama is really upset about is his falling approval numbers. If so, he really is a thin-skinned woosie. If I remember my Greek mythology correctly, Narcissus was a thin-skinned woosie. This is part of the job, Mr. President. Even President Reagan had days when he wasn’t so popular. Obama needs to get tough. Quit complaining about FOX News. The leader of the free world needs to start acting like it. Let’s start with making a decision about Afghanistan.

A study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of FOX News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of FOX News’ stories on Obama’s Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.
On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories — a spread of 59 points.

I know liberals love to complain about FOX news but it seems to me that it’s becoming sour grapes. MSNBC is basically working for the DNC and the White House is upset with FOX’s coverage? It appears liberals are so used to blatantly biased news in their favor and they can’t stomach anyone who remotely tries to be balanced. I should note this is news coverage and not talking heads. Glen Beck is a populist, O’Reilly is a centrist, and Hannity is a Republican.
The biggest surprise to me about Pew’s findings is that “centrist” CNN wasn’t objective in the last election. This is why I can’t watch these outlets. During the Bush years liberals complained that the press was “too easy” on Bush. Now the White House who has received the most spectacular free pass in history is upset with FOX because they’re too harsh on the President. Obama must have thin skin if he’s concerned about what FOX has to say. After eight years of relentless press assault Bush proved he could take criticism. Obama and the left can’t take any criticism.

Souter was in many ways a typical, old-fashioned Yankee Republican — a moderate with an independent, even quirky streak. Whether he became more liberal in his views after joining the Supreme Court, as many conservatives believe, may depend on your politics.

Ah, it’s the old “independent streak” farce that journalists love. Since 80% of journalists vote consistently for Democrats the idea of “independence” means fleeing from conservative ideals. The court was tilted to the left when Souter was appointed. I’m not sure how siding with the liberal bloc provides Souter with a mythical independent streak. Does CNN also believe that the British Empire fought for independence during the American Revolution? Was Benedict Arnold just “a moderate with an independent, even quirky streak?” Souter’s political ideology is evident since he waited to retire after Bush was out of office. Souter hates Washington, but he loves the liberal bloc more.

Whether Arnold became a traitor during the war, as many Americans believe, may depend on your politics
If Obama nominates a “moderate” Justice (I know it’s impossible, but humor me) who later repeals Roe v. Wade, does anyone believe that will be considered “independent” by the sophists at CNN? More likely CNN would paint this person as a cowardly traitor who can’t conjure up an original thought and who followed the extreme Roberts side of the court. Souter’s place on the court isn’t up for much debate except, apparently, at CNN.
It’s been an interesting week in politics. Obama held a press conference in honor of his 100th day in office. The man loves himself. Senator Specter changed parties and there’s been a lot written about the “big tent” of the republican party losing another member. Although it’s a bit of stretch because Specter has never really been a strong member of the caucus. It’s amazing republicans put up with him for so long. Compare Specter to how the Democrats treated Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has been a solid liberal in the Senate. His only crime is supporting the war. I guess the “big tent” didn’t have room for him. The idea that the left is more tolerant than the right is nonsense, but as long as the mainstream press is liberal these are the faux realties we have to deal with as conservatives.