An earlier diary of mine several weeks ago dealt with the realization that the media’s double standard must be target #1. I flatly reject the commonplace resignation about the damage that media dishonesty is causing to society through politics.

This diary is a discussion of why the Democratic Party should make appointing a National Democratic Media Secretary a matter of the highest priority, as foundation of a general offensive on antidemocratic bias in the media. The exclusive job of this person should be to deal with the NATIONAL media’s double standard. This position should be fully funded, senior, permanent, and full-time. It should deal proactively with all the 'gotcha' questions in the traditional media, and be the focal point for counterattacks on all the national media's distortions, and monitor and report on the state of the media's double standard.

We have been listening to stories about a liberal bias in the MSM for years now. All the while we have been witnessing an MSM that has become  so afraid to be labeled as liberal, that they no longer can do their job. The Iraq war itself is the worst consequence of this situation. And I believe the coverage of the McCain campaign is the culmination of this phenomenon. While it is hard to get traction complaining about the MSM giving a pass to McCain on his plethora of gaffes, the recent CBS attempt to cover up one of McCain's more spectacular rewrites of history, rises to a new level. It's time to turn the tables and start doing some very loud intimidating of our own. The evidence now exists and it is incontrovertible. I would like to see KO start a new countdown, number of days since CBS and Katie Couric joined the McCain campaign.

You can criticize John McCain for a great many things.  Media relations hasn't been one of them -- up until now.

Over the last eight years, McCain has taken pains to cozy up to the media.  It proved to be a devastatingly effective strategy, as a tidal wave of glowing news reports allowed a broke McCain campaign to neutralize and overcome the immense cash warchests of Romney and Giuliani.

This relationship was McCain's most potent weapon against Barack Obama -- and his best chance of victory in November.

This week, John McCain did the unthinkable -- he threw his media allies under the bus for short-term political gain.  Remember this decision well, for it likely marked the end of any hope John McCain had of winning the 2008 election.

Ok, so by now you've probably heard about the McCaign campaign's ad, "Love Is In The Air", which whines about the MSM's supposed ""love affair" with Obama.

As Jake Trapper from Political Punch puts it,

"This is like Britney Spears complaining that the hype around Miley Cyrus far exceeds her talent."

As I mentioned in part 1 of this series, the media has a strong incentive to create issues where McCain seems to "beat" Obama, because this helps create the impression that McCain and Obama are locked in a tight race, despite strong evidence otherwise.  In this second part, I will take a look at another issue where the media narrative seems to run opposite to the facts on the ground: how unified each party is.

We've collectively grown used to the idea of a biased media.  Conservatives consistently harp on the idea of a liberal media bias, to the point that it's almost accepted wisdom, while authors such as Glenn Greenwald and Ariana Huffington have exhaustively laid out the case that it is the right that controls the media narrative.

At times, however, it's more interesting to temporarily set aside which way the media is biased, and in stead focus on why the media would have an incentive to be biased.  That is, forget for a moment that the right wing rewards loyal journalists with access and scoops, or that many journalists are part of the wealthy elite that benefits from extreme neoliberal economic principles.  In stead, just think about the media as a business that wants more eyeballs so they can sell advertising at higher rates.  With that in mind, it becomes clear that they need a compelling story to tell.

It's becoming patently clear that the Associated Press has a chronic problem with employing reporters with a blatant anti-Democrat bias.  Just a quick search at Media Matters' website shows the depth of the problem, but we know many of the best (worst) examples from Pickler and others.

But, the worst was yet to come.  Most of us know by now this clear indication of underlying bias shown by the AP's Washington Bureau head Ron Fournier.  

Karl Rove exchanged e-mails about Pat Tillman with Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier, under the subject line "H-E-R-O." In response to Mr. Fournier's e-mail, Mr. Rove asked, "How does our country continue to produce men and women like this," to which Mr. Fournier replied, "The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight."

Take a moment to breath in the depravity here.

This whole day has been about one John McCain campaign disaster after another, from his Social Security comments to his complete idiocy on the Viagara/birth control moment to Senator "Dr. Phil"

Recently, the AP has been failing to uphold its standards of journalistic integrity. Josh Marshall at TPM has been documenting this carefully, even stating semi-facetiously that the AP has "endorsed" McCain. He has even charged the AP with bamboozlement over its distortion of Obama's Iraq stance.

In particular, AP writer Liz Sidoti (of McCain donut sprinkles fame: see first link) has written that: "On Iraq, he has gone from hard-line opposition to the war to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for a troop drawdown process that could last 16 months." Of course, this is patently false for Obama has always talked about a 16 month withdrawal. She also writes of Obama's Iraq stance: "a potentially flexible formulation that has troubled liberals."

However, this is also patently false. The uniform response from the liberal blogosphere has been condemnation of the media for distortion, not Obama.

Below I describe how you can take action. Please rec this diary to encourage others to do likewise.

This is just breaking from the AP and I pulled the clip below from C-Span.

"Vice President Dick Cheney’s office pushed for major deletions in congressional testimony on the public health consequences of climate change, fearing the presentation by a leading health official might make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gases."

What on earth? Maybe I just shouldn't be shocked anymore but its times like these that the phrase "reality based community" comes to mind and I'm happy to be a part of it. See, we in the reality based community make our decisions based on judicious study of discernible reality. People like Dick Cheney try to bury scientific study to suit their political/economic agenda. Thats the difference.

Watch the clip and weigh in with your thoughts on this breaking story:

Friday's opinion page features at least two items of note.

Also in the A section, a well done piece on why the GOP has had to shift gears in dealing with the Obama campaign.

It does indeed seem we're seeing a shift in campaign coverage. On the part of, at least, NYT.

It is hard to ignore it in this campaign.  Race.  

For the first time ever, we have a presumptive nominee who is an African American.  There is no escaping it.  Race.  

Senator Obama delivered nothing short of an inspiring speech about it.  Race.  

But don’t we live in a colorblind society?  Shouldn’t race be inconsequential?    No.  And no.

So its no mystery to 90% or so of the people here that actually bother to watch some FOX News from time to time, but in case you've been living under a rock let me break it down for you:

They are biased. Shamefully and absurdly biased. While they may operate under a slogan of "Fair and Balanced" they are a few stone throws away from outright Rush Limbaugh partisanship to the GOP.

However, you will probably encounter numerous people throughout the U.S. who will argue that FOX is in fact NOT biased and that its "the liberal media" (IE: everything that isn't right wing talk radio, right wing publications or FOX) that is in fact biased and the real problem. Many have differed on what exactly to say to these confused individuals. But today I present to you something so egregious and shameful that you can simply point to it and not have to go further in wasting your time -

Here is a link to a huffington post from a few days back from Joseph Palmero:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

It says, amongst other things that:
"The producers should be careful when poking fun at Obama not to provide fuel for the right-wing slime machine. Poke fun at Obama all you want, but do it in a way that also reveals the Republicans’ mendacity and hypocrisy."

Come again? While I may be an Obama supporter no politician is without their faults. In my opinion The Daily Show can't be relied upon to trump up Obama and put down McCain in some partisan way - nor should it be. Thats not to say that its always going to be balanced, but The Daily Show's purpose is to go after media and politicians for their absurdity and to call them on their BS.

I don't think its constructive to give instructions to Jon Stewart et al on how to manage their show to highlight Republican hypocrisy. In light of that, I wanted to see what people at KOS think about this issue and I've posted a few recent clips that go after Barack Obama.

Check them out and weigh in with how YOU feel about the Daily Show and humor that pokes fun at Obama:

The fact that this law firm would hire Ms. McDonald after her "abrupt" resignation from the DOJ last year is a concrete basis not to provide any business to Seyfarth.

Let's see, she's a graduate of Pensacola Christian College (but her Seyfarth page omits that reference) and went to the University of Notre Dame for her law degree.

A case study in Georgia's 3rd Congressional District (incumbent Lynn "3 Commandments" Westmoreland.)

On May 7, 2008, local paper publishes an op-ed piece from Lynn Westmoreland addressing high gas prices and attacking Democrats on the issue.   http://www.times-herald.com/...

On May 16, 2008, same paper publishes editorial serving as a mouthpiece for Westmoreland's press secretary (quoting him extensively in the most apologetic manner possible) explaining that Lynn Westmoreland supports mothers and Mother's Day. http://www.times-herald.com/...

UPDATED: Paper publishes substantive news article on 6-23-2008 highlighting Camp's critique of Westmoreland's comments.
http://www.times-herald.com/...

In a recent The Atlantic blog post, blogger Matt Yglesias inexplicably writes he "100% agrees with" a Jonah Goldberg recommendation to turn Meet The Press into a panel-show hosted by Chuck Todd.

A Matt Yglesias commenter (in a comment typical of those on the thread) writes: "I think Chuck Todd would be a great choice. Cerebral, likeable, not overtly ideological, not a blowhard, projects competence."

But Chuck Todd is a typical corporate media shill who uses his position in the mainstream-media to trim the facts presented to the public and to promote Republicans!

When I think of the life of Tim Russert I will think of a man who could have done so much good with the power that was given to him and instead used it to help those who had some of the worst motives and intentions on the American political scene.