Reminder Of Why Obama (Or Any Democratic Presidential Nominee) Is An Underdog

[Median Democrat]

We have all talked about the bias of the MSM. Media Matters does a great job of tracking such bias:

http://mediamatters.org/

However, as this election cycle continues, and the media begins to pile on the latest Democratic candidate while the GOP nominee gets a free pass, it is becoming more and more clear that we do not merely have bias, we have an agenda by the MSM. Why does Big Media have an agenda? Because it is in their strong economic interest for McCain to win the presidency:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3499394

As a reminder of this agenda, here's a reminder of an article that appeared three years ago when a Fox chief blurted out Fox New's agenda to politicize news coverage in order to promote the GOP:

http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/

Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere.

Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.

Norvell never says the word "conservative" in describing "where stand on particular stories," or what Fox's viewers "know … they are getting." But in context, Norvell clearly is using the example of Fox News to argue that political bias is acceptable when it isn't subsidized by the public (as his op-ed's target, the leftish BBC, is), and when the bias is acknowledged. Norvell's little joke about clubbing lefties to death should satisfy even the most literal-minded that the bias Norvell describes is a conservative one. (Lord only knows where Norvell acquired the erroneous belief that Fox News is "honest" about its conservative slant; perhaps he's so used to Fox's protestations of objectivity being ignored that he literally forgot that they continue to be uttered.)