Obama and the media: it's not the bias; it's the dishonesty
I am not one of those who thinks unlawful donations like those from Barack Obama's illegal alien aunt Zeituni Onyango (now being returned) constitute a a significant proportion of the candidate's immense money pile. But what is significant is that we are learning about this - and other examples of donation malfeasance like credit card fraud - so late in the game. Add to this the LAT is still pocketing the Khalidi tape, not even publishing, as yet, a transcript and we have a pattern we have all known about for some time: extreme media bias in favor of Obama. It's even been the subject of Saturday Night Live skits.
But bias, bad as it may be, is not the real problem. Everybody has a bias. We all know that. It's when bias creates dishonesty that the dry rot sets in. The media has been essentially dishonest in its non-investigation of Obama for what now is several years. With all their vast resources, they have given us virtually no reportage on his years at Harvard and Columbia and he is about to become President of the United States.
And this dishonesty, clearly perceived by the public even as it will likely elect Obama, is what accounts for a great deal of the economic woes of the mainstream media today. That same public know the NYT, LAT and WaPo are no longer reliable sources. The Washinton Post's -- clearly the best of the three - earnings plummeting 86% in the third quarter of this year is no longer a surprise, nor is it entirely related to the overall economic meltdown.
It will be interesting to see if there is a shift in their coverage in the aftermath of the election. My guess is that it will take some time for that ship to right itself, if it ever does. The embarrassment factor would be too great - even if it would satisfy some of their shareholders.