http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009..._headlines

Quote:But with their decision to ignore the Jones story, they may have actually done Mr. Obama far more harm than good: Who vetted this guy? How did he get past the FBI? What did he say, and how did he answer the infamous seven-page questionnaire that all Obama appointees were required to fill out? Inquiring Freedom of Information Act minds want to know.

For most people in this country, the resignation was the first they had heard of Van Jones. For this sin of journalistic omission, there's institutional media blame. Bias is too tame a word for the utter shamelessness on display: Only Republican scandals - real and imagined - matter.

And it's not just those the Democratic-Media Complex dub as "mobs" or "tea baggers" that are taking notice. Diminishing audience and evaporating subscribership reflect widespread consumer dissatisfaction. Eventually, the money will run out.

But until then, the growing alternative media of Internet and talk radio and a burgeoning mass of justifiably angry Americans will make every effort to expose the sham that is mainstream journalism.

Obviously, it's not that the Jones story wasn't newsworthy. His racist rants, his radical background and his membership in a 9/11 "truther" group made for heavy-rotation YouTube viewing that would have immediately destroyed other mere mortals if the shoe were on the right - or white - foot.

Compounding the problem, the Jones narrative hurts Mr. Obama because it underlines how the mainstream media helped elect the president by glorifying him instead of vetting him.

Just as Mr. Obama was not even cursorily investigated, Van Jones, a fellow "community organizer," was not given the slightest media attention when named as an unaccountable "czar" selected to oversee billions in taxpayer money for the ambiguous purpose of "green energy." And that despite having a body of damning evidence that could be found with a single Google search by an ADHD-addled high-school journalism student.

I sort of wonder if it even matters anymore. Anyone plugged into their biases already supplements their news from outside MSM-sources.

I also sort of wonder if there is not some publicity hungry journo out there, maybe he is liberal, maybe middle of the road, maybe conservative - but it doesn't matter. WHERE ON EARTH are the Woodward and Bernsteins anymore? Why doesn't a MSM journo who wants the flashbulbs of fame write about any of this? Why doesn't the Kankakee Daily Journal have a closed door meeting and say "hey, I know we all vote straight lever Democrat, but holy macaroni there are 4 to five Pulitzers just waiting out there, if we have the courage to investigate?"

Strange to think that ambition is not more of playing in journalism anymore.......

Moderates don't have much of a bias other than a beleif that all sides are equally bad, they float with the political winds. Not going to matter with hard-core Dems or Reps, its all about that mushy middle that aren't ideological minded, and are persuaded to vote for someone by what the TV tells them, what little they watch of the 'news' over ESPN, MTV, HGTV, Celeb Gossip, etc.