OK--so I'm on a bit of a Lou Dobbs kick lately.  I'll admit it; Sweet Lou provides such a rich target environment that he's hard to pass up. 



Without a sense of irony, Sweet Lou launched into a media bias diatribe
against the New York Times on tonight's telecast.  Immediately
preceding his 'the New York Times is a liberal rag' rant, this is how
he chose to open his show:

Tonight Senator Obama trying to look presidential in Iraq with the help
of his liberal media friends who many say are outright biased against
Senator McCain.

Senator Obama today visited Iraq on a so-called fact-findings mission
cheered on by a (INAUDIBLE) traveling press corp. The senator met with
the commander of all of our troops in the Middle East, General David
Petraeus. But Obama has already made up his mind on Iraq.

He
wants to with draw all our combat brigades in 16 months regardless of
conditions on the ground. Obama giving the same message to the Iraqi
prime minister, al-Maliki in a meeting designed to demonstrate the
senator's so-called credentials as commander in chief.

Let's take two of Sweet Lou's statements. 

Senator Obama today visited Iraq on a so-called fact-findings mission

A so-called fact finding mission.  Does Sweet Lou have some information with which I am not familiar?  Every single person associated with the Obama campaign has stated that he is there to gather information.  Unless I'm wrong, Sen McCain and the RNC wanted Sen. Obama to go on this fact finding mission.

In fact, there is no information that Sweet Lou can credibly cite to objectively claim this trip is anything other then what it purports to be.  Oh sure, he can speculate about the intent of the trip to his little heart's content.  However, if his interpretation is negative towards Sen. Obama, and not backed by objectively verifiable facts, then he is engaged in media bias.

Obama has already made up his mind on Iraq.

Really?  Because I thought that Sen. Obama has repeatedly stated what he told ABC's Terry Moran today:

Speaking about his support for a timetable for troop withdrawal, Obama
said he wasn't changing his position by saying he would take into
account the assessment of military commanders on the ground.

"What I will refuse to do is to get boxed in into what I
consider two false choices," he said. "Either I have a rigid timeline,
come hell or high water, and I am blind to anything that happens in the
intervening 16 months, or, alternatively, I am completely deferring to
whatever the commanders on the ground say, which is what George Bush
says he's doing, in which case I'm not doing my job as commander in
chief. I'm essentially, simply rubber-stamping decisions that are made
on the ground.

Seems to me that Sen. Obama has consistently stated that 16 months seems like the best balance of strategic interests and troop security, but he reserves the right to change the redeployment if conditions dictate a readjustment.

Made up his mind?  I love how Sweet Lou just matter-of-factly spits that out.  This guy is obviously prescient because he seems to be privy to information unavailable to other journalists.  Of course, the fact is that Sen. Obama has left himself quite a bit of wiggle room on Iraq.  There are legitimate criticisms of that position.  However, stating that Sen. Obama has already made up his mind, again, without being able to cite any objectively verifiable information, seems to smack of the kind of media bias he purports to expose.

One last point with regards to tonight's show.  There was a videotaped segment about liberal bias in the media.  The segment was narrated by the Washington Post's media critic Howard Shultz.  Shultz ran a segment on the New York Times not running John McCain's op-ed this weekend.  Here's how the end of the exchange between Shultz and Dobbs transpired:

DOBBS: Well surely not even the augustly liberal "New York Times"
believes going back to 1996 is even remotely equal to the arrogant and
just absolutely presumptuous statement of David Shipley (ph), the
editor, to the McCain campaign. I mean that is about as arrogant as it
gets.

KURTZ: Well you know it certainly wouldn't be unusual
for an editor to say we like the piece, but we'd like a little bit more
on this or that. But to give a laundry list of things that you have to
include including the word timetables, which Senator McCain especially
and particularly rejects with regard to Iraq...

DOBBS: Right.


KURTZ: ... days after publishing an Obama piece that wasn't all that
detailed either certainly raises the question of imbalance.


DOBBS: Yes and I get to say this because I'm the advocacy journalist
here, Howard. "The New York Times" is just play plain belly-up biased
and that's straightforward. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Howard
Kurtz, as always...

I guess if you say it Lou, it must be true.

By the way, Howard Kurtz is referred to in the piece as:

Howard Kurtz, host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES" has our report.

Funny, no mention of Kurtz's position with the Washington Post, a paper that, along with the Wall Street Journal, is its primary competitor for national news.

Doesn't a segment attacking the New York Times for being "belly-up biased" and in the tank for Barack Obama warrant a mention that the person doing the reporting works for the targets' competitor?

One thing we agree on Lou, you are definitely an 'advocacy journalist'.  Unfortunately, your campaign 'advocacy' and criticism seems to roughly parallel Republican Party talking points.  All while repeatedly referring to yourself as providing an 'independent perspective' for viewers. 

That seems a bit biased to me.