In 2000 Al Gore was pilloried by the mainstream media ("MSM") for his alleged untruths or exaggerations -- Love Canal, Love Story, Internet, Who he visited in Texas. In every instance, at the very most he had chosen the wrong word or failed to clarify the misunderstandings of others.

Now in 2008 the McCain-Palin ticket revels in inaccuracy, wallows in whoppers, lies like a pair of rugs, buys ad time to tell still more lies. So tell me why the MSM doesn't talk about their dishonesty endlessly, turning them from celebrity stars into pathological figures?

The contrast is absolutely clear. What's the explanation?

And note WaPo puts on the front page an article excusing Sarah Palin for not knowing anything about George Bush's foreign policy. Does anyone recall WaPo defending Gore?

Just asking.

All Americans obtain the greatest part of their news and information about national events from the television, including broadcast and media. The television content is informed to a large degree from the major newspapers, and many papers own some television businesses. So by the mainstream media or MSM, we mean the large conglomerates that, across newspapers and television cable and broadcast outlets, provide the largest share of news and information to Americans.

And my goodness is that MSM sabotaging democracy. By far, this is the worst election coverage in the history of electronic media.

The primary problem is that the MSM has virtually en masse decided that the election is a celebrity feud, Entertainment Tonight, verbal WWF, high school hallway shoving match -- and that both truth and the direction of America are quite irrelevant to the sheer fun of broadcasting each twist and turn of the name calling emanating largely from the McCain camp.

Read more »