EDITORIAL: Media bias

Stating the obvious. So what? Those who read the Post does so precisely because they want the left-wing spin. So who cares?

The most eye-opening forum of the presidential campaigns was the one at Saddleback Church where Rick Warren acquitted himself more competently than any media illuminati moderator at a later debate and revealed the candidates for who they were. That should have received far more coverage and analysis. It didn't because it was an embarrassment to Mr. Obama. What did the media choose to focus on? The rumored (sour grapes) "cheating" of McCain by reportedly (we know by whom) eavesdropping. Pitiful.

If their own ombudsman admits the bias, how much worse must it be in actuality? But the more serious charge is that these most ardent defenders of freedom of the press have failed in their responsibility to seek out and publish the truth that its readers need to vote intelligently. What is the First Amendment about, if not that?

I want to thank the Washington Times for being the most unbiased paper in the nation. Never did they publish editorials claiming Barak Obama was a national security threat because all of his best friends are terrorists. well looks like we have a terrorist loving terrorist who is the son of terrorists, who was taught by terrorists, coming from a terrorist city as the president of the United States

Has the Washington Times no sense of shame or irony? No? Neither has it an Ombudsman. Presumably to save it embarassment. The election coverage in the WT was uniform, unrelenting and one-sided against the Democratic cadidate. No innuendo against Obama was left unturned. Response or reply was neither facilitated or tolerated. The WT provided a platform for fact-lite practitioners of hate and extremism such as Gaffney, Steyn, North, and the sad thesbian has-been, Jon Voight. At least the Post provided its readers with a contrary view with Krauthammer, Broder, and Krystol. Sham on you, Mr. Editor. Shame and shame on you again.