[Riverman]

The thing that really upsets me is that amid the right's 20 year campaign to hammer away at what it sees as media bias they have scared news organizations into providing "balanced" coverage in cases where there is really no need to "balance" anything. An example:

Valerie Plame case: Bush originally says "Anyone involved in outing an undercover agent will not be a part of my administration." So then it becomes pretty damn clear that Rove was involved, and he changes his statement to "Anyone who committed a crime will not be a part of my administration." There is no liberal element to pointing out that he "flip-flopped," and the facts are not up for dispute. Still, major news will put some republican operative, spewing talking points, on to "balance" the coverage.

Another thing that really bothered me is election coverage. At this point it is pretty clear that both the 2000 and 2004 elections had irregularities if not outright cheating in favor of the republican party in Florida and Ohio respectively. Where is the coverage? The MSM went along with the its over lets move on line, even though there is significant evidence of outright corruption (at least in Ohio). Where was the "balanced" discussion on the legitimacy/wisdom of the Supreme Court stepping in to decide Bush v. Gore, particularly when justices who were on record as being strong supporters of "states rights" usurped the authority to decide the election result in Florida?