I was just talking the other day about the double standards of sports radio. Callers and hosts can rip Jason Giambi, Pacman Jones, Alex Rodriguez, and Kobe Bryant in the most vicious manner. But dare say something mildly critical of a host's colleague in broadcasting and you'll be cut off, lectured on what an awful person you are, and screamed at before the host hangs up. The same thing is at work among journalists covering current events. Investigate them and you are immediately anathema. That's why Bill Dedman's a brave man for publishing the political contributions of his colleagues in journalism on MSNBC.com.

If you recall, I produced a similar report on the political giving of employees at the top national universities in the lead-up to the 2004 election. At each of the twenty-five schools examined, donations to Kerry exceeded donations to Bush. The disparity was 302-1 at Princeton, 43-1 at MIT, and 9-1 at Duke. Diversity? Anyone? Anyone? Bill Dedman finds that among journalists, political diversity is not much better. Donations to liberals/Democrats exceeded donations to conservatives/Republicans among media types by a 9-1 ratio. Aside from appropriate questions of balance, the survey raises questions about the propriety of journalists demonstrating a rooting interest in candidates and causes that they cover. Don't they have rules against this? They should, but I'm glad that they don't, or that the rules in place aren't followed. The paper trail of donations gives media consumers a more accurate picture of the biases of the guardians of information.

Should we be shocked that the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg, a former Carter speechwriter and '60s radical, gave $2000 to John Kerry? Is anyone surprised that all of the employees of Mayor Bloomberg's lucrative financial news service who made Dedman's list gave to Democrats? Or that MTV News alums Serena Altschul and Gideon Yago gave exclusively to liberals?

Yago's defensive response to MSNBC is classic. "I don't understand. Things that I do as a private citizen?," the former MTV star wonders. "I mean, what the f---, man?" What the chuck, indeed. Journalists highlight the political giving of businessmen, actors, and other "private citizens." Why not expose the political interests of the journalists who expose the political interests of everyone else?

There's a mountain of evidence that points to how those in the mainstream media are either hard core leftists or are pulling for the left and that they demonstrate their social/political slant by how they report or don't report the news. So, it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that the majority of them support the party of the left.

I would suggest that if the Dems are willing to push legislation to shut down conservative talk radio (which will eventually gravitate to conservative TV news) and other such shows with a conservative slant, there should be like legislation to shut down the obvious liberal programming.

However, the reality of the free market is that people will consume the product that's best and that's why conservative programming trumps liberal programming every time.

What is news? I don't believe alot of what I hear and see in the media not just because those reporting are idealogical hacks but because I am naturally skeptical. I wasn't there, so I have to take somebody else's word for it. News is instant history; and that is exactly what it is- his story. If I don't trust the messenger I doubt the message.

If you've read Charles Frankel's High on Foggy Bottom, you'd see how even the most Utopian president, Johnson, could not appease the media, which showed itself to the left of him. No social program that "The Great Programmer" put into action was enough to do the trick.

It was startling to read Frankel express Johnson's frustration with placating the lefties in the press. He expresses that no matter what they did, the press dismissed it as if it were a baby step, and that the Johnson administration was only faking a progressive attitude. I mean a liberal administration could feel the liberal slant against them reflected in the press.

What chance has republican president had against such a media?!?! I sense another round of "so-called liberal press" coming....

(It's a good read, btw.)