All the News that Fits Our Biases

You can always tell what a newspaper finds important by what it puts on the front page.  It’s also a good way to learn about the paper’s biases.

You may recall that the New York Times wrote very little on page one, or anyplace else in the paper, about the relationship – whatever it was – between presidential candidate Barack Obama and his old left-wing  pal Bill Ayers, the one who along with other radical leftists tried to blow up the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol during the heyday of the anti-Vietnam war movement.

The Times did write about Obama’s relationship with his long time minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but the paper didn’t publish Wright’s most inflammatory sermons until very late in the game.

If the “newspaper of record” had been more vigilant, there’s a good chance Hillary Clinton (or who knows, maybe even John McCain) would be president today.

More recently the Times ignored the Van Jones story — until he resigned.  If the Times was the only place you got your news, you wouldn’t have a clue as to who Van Jones was or why he was resigning.  But if you watched FOX News, you knew that Jones was President Obama’s so-called “green jobs czar” – a screwball leftist who signed a petition calling for an investigation to learn whether then President George W. Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks on America.  The Times didn’t find that nugget especially newsworthy.

Then there were those famous Acorn videos, the ones that showed a “pimp” and his “ho” seeking — and getting — advice from Acron employees in several cities on how best to open a brothel and staff it with underage girls from Central America — and launder their profits while evading taxes.  The Times didn’t find that story newsworthy either.  Even its public editor, Clark Hoyt, slapped the paper around for that one.

“But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn,” Hoyt wrote, “The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes — closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser — suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.”

And now we have another tidbit from the New York Times, more than a tidbit, actually  – a story that appeared on page one of its Sunday paper (Jan. 31) – and continued for almost an entire inside page.  And like most stories that appear on page one of an important newspaper, this one tells us a lot about what the editors of the New York Times think is important – and a lot about their biases, too.   The story ran under the headline, “From High Jinks to Handcuffs” and was about the very same young man, James O’Keefe, who pretended to be a pimp in order to expose Acorn — and who, along with three pals, was arrested and charged with a federal felony — entering federal property under false pretenses.  Authorities believe they were trying to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans offices of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat.

O’Keefe, the story told us, was just the tip of a conservative movement iceberg.  “Although he may be the most public face of this new approach, he is just one of a group of young conservatives who use political pranks and embarrassing recordings to upend what they view as overwhelming liberal biases on college campuses and in the culture at large,” the story said.

What they view as overwhelming liberal biases on college campuses? Memo to the New York Times:  It’s not what they view as overwhelming liberal biases … it’s what anyone with at least a room temperature IQ knows is overwhelming liberal biases on college campuses. In any event, the Times played the story as if it were Watergate all over again.

I am not writing to defend James O’Keefe.  If he did what he’s charged with, he crossed a line from prank to crime.  I’m not even writing about whether this is a legitimate page one story.  Reasonable people disagree all the time about such things.  But if the Times didn’t think the Acorn story was worth covering, why does it now find Mr. O’Keefe – and other campus conservatives — worthy of so much ink?

Acorn, after all, receives tens of millions of taxpayer dollars and has been repeatedly accused of trying to subvert our electoral process.  That, the noble New York Times, didn’t find all that interesting when the videos came out. O’Keefe at worst is a young guy who did something really dumb.  But his tactics – and those of other young conservatives like him  – the Times finds worthy of a very long story in its Sunday edition.  Hmmm!

So, the question one more time:  Why does it find Mr. O’Keefe worthy of so much ink?  Could it be because he’s a conservative who got into trouble?

Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up.  That and the fact that the Times sees conservatives as the enemy … and when conservatives screw-up, those noble journalists at the most important newspaper in the galaxy salivate.  And that, my friends, is how bias really works in what has become the lamestream media.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • chas

    Thanks for any other great article. Where else could anyone get that kind of info in such an ideal means of writing? I’ve a presentation next week, and I am at the search for such information.

  • Russian Revolution – Революция в России

    It is in point of fact a nice and useful piece of info. I’m satisfied that you simply shared this helpful info with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.

  • civil engineering services

    I truly loved %BLOGTITLE%. Moreover, they are generally accountable for designing and planning systems to benefit the fishes populace of their working location.






  • Linsey Orlof

    I’m behind you every step of the way. You have a legal entitlement to your own view, and you ought never let anyone tell you anything else. Good on you!

  • Robert Lynch

    Dear Barnie, Would you please view the above web-site and consider supporting.

    Thank You,

    Robert Lynch

  • Michele

    And there is cetainly no bias on this website!

    • Dan

      don’t attack Bernie for stating his opinion, he has the right to do so. Just like you have the right to chose whether to read this article or not.

      i think that this is a great article Bernie, and it really reflects what is happening all over the country with the media.

  • Salvatore Costa

    Mr. Goldberg,
    In keeping with your critism of the lamestream media, press in particular, the following article by Tom McNiff, managing editor of the Ocala Star-Banner is indicative of where journalism is today. Journalism is an art rather than a science. Consequently journalism is jubjective rather than objective.
    “Why we choose to run certain stories, photos and facts
    That’s what our readers often want to know.
    Why do we choose certain photos, write certain headlines, publish certain stories and not others?
    Why do we publish some facts?
    Why do we leave others out?
    When tour groups visit the Star-Banner, I take them into our conference room where we hold our news meetings, and describe the way we work through these questions.
    We talk, we argue, we listen, and we reach consensus.
    And when there isn’t consensus, the editor makes a judgment call.
    In the end, the process is more art form than science.
    No matter how hard you try, you can’t take all the subjectivity out of it.
    Yes, we try to be as scientific as possible.
    We apply criteria.
    Is the story local? Would it interest our readers? Which readers? Is a fact relevant? Etc.
    We also consider the mythical “average, reasonable reader.”
    Would a fact, a photo, a headline offend the reasonable reader?
    Would this reader feel that certain details are gratuitous, or would the reader feel they were helpful in understanding the story?
    This question came up recently while our public safety reporter, Austin Miller, was reporting a story about the alarming number of marijuana grow houses popping up locally.
    As it turns out, the vast majority of the people arrested for operating these grow houses are Cuban nationals.
    From August to December 2007, all 16 people arrested were Cuban; in 2008, 32 of 37 were Cuban; and in 2009, 29 of 35 were.
    Within days of publishing that story, the angry e-mails, letters and calls started.
    It was racist to point out the suspects were Cuban, some said.
    Most Cubans are good, hard-working people, and the story made it seem that Cubans are all criminals, others said.
    Like most radioactive issues, we saw this criticism coming, and we talked about it at length.
    The first question we asked was, is it racist to point out that the majority of the suspects are Cuban?
    No, we concluded, it was not.
    You see, we don’t identify people by race unless it’s relevant to the story.
    You never point out race for the sake of pointing out race.
    It fuels racial stereotypes.
    But Cuban is a nationality, not a race.
    Cubans can be Hispanic, white or black.
    So then why is it relevant that the majority of the suspects were Cuban nationals?
    Whether they were Cuban, Mexican, Egyptian, British, Thai or Canadian, it is worth noting that most of the people arrested are foreign nationals.
    It reveals a pattern, a disturbing trend that a group of outsiders is setting up criminal enterprises in our midst.
    The reasonable reader I mentioned earlier?
    I don’t think that person believes that a group of criminals represents the law-abiding, Cuban-American community.
    We certainly don’t believe it.
    It was racist to point out the suspects were Cuban, some said.
    Most Cubans are good, hard-working people, and the story made it seem that Cubans are all criminals, others said.
    Like most radioactive issues, we saw this criticism coming, and we talked about it at length.
    The first question we asked was, is it racist to point out that the majority of the suspects are Cuban?
    No, we concluded, it was not.
    You see, we don’t identify people by race unless it’s relevant to the story.
    You never point out race for the sake of pointing out race.
    It fuels racial stereotypes.
    But Cuban is a nationality, not a race.
    Cubans can be Hispanic, white or black.
    So then why is it relevant that the majority of the suspects were Cuban nationals?
    Whether they were Cuban, Mexican, Egyptian, British, Thai or Canadian, it is worth noting that most of the people arrested are foreign nationals.
    It reveals a pattern, a disturbing trend that a group of outsiders is setting up criminal enterprises in our midst.
    The reasonable reader I mentioned earlier?
    I don’t think that person believes that a group of criminals represents the law-abiding, Cuban-American community.
    We certainly don’t believe it.”

  • John S.


    I’m a big fan but one thing is niggling at me about your last appearance, the ’57 states’ thing is not about Obama, after all any tired person can mis-speak, but the issue is the MSM non-coverage of it. If Palin, Bush or any number of conservatives had said it you quite literally would never hear the end of it. Keep their feet to the fire.

  • Bob Sella

    I thought the Manhatten to Malibu article was right on the money. Good Job!

    Bob Sella
    Park Forest, IL

  • Kathie Ampela


    This article isn’t exactly related to your column, but it’s very interesting reading:

  • ken graber

    dear sir:

    have you ever done any research on the left brain/right brain concept and looked at the Pres in this light. We have a left brained Pres and he does not know it. He says that he is not an idealist but that does not matter because he is a left brainer and his thought pattern will always be from that perspective of thought. Therefore, the decisions that he makes are most predictable and follow a pattern of thought that only left brainers use. Left brainers drive right brainers nuts and even tweeners have a very hard time understanding them. Jimmy Carter was a left brainer and look what happened to that administration. And now history has repeated itself and we are once again saddled with a left brain thought pattern of trying to govern. Since left brainers only live in the present -highly structured —show your work kind of world, the future is never a part of their decision making process.
    have a great day
    ken graber

  • Brad VenHuizen

    Really appreciate hearing your views on O’Reilly every week. The malfeasance in the national and local press of not bothering to report stories that don’t fit their biases is astounding as you have been pointing out for some time. I would hope you might high light the lack of reporting in Chicago on Lech Walesa’s endorsement of a conservative candidate for Governor of Illinois the next time you are on the Factor.

    • Ellie

      Chicago has one of the largest eastern European communities in the country. Lech Valesa was sponsored by George Soros at the time he fought communism. When he got in power in Poland a horrific hyperinflation hit Poland. Transition from communism to democracy is glorified around the world, but folks from Eastern Europe remember the organized crime that came with that transition and Lech Valesa is not nessecary a person the Americans from eastern European origin trust.

  • Wil Burns

    Hey Bernie, To O’Reilly, You didn’t hesitate, saying, “Yes . . . when George Bush was President people on the hard left . . . wouldn’t have given him credit if he had found a cure for cancer .”

    …and he was so close!

    • tim

      No, more like the praise he received from the left for his AIDS initiative in Africa. Oh that’s right they didn’t give him any!

      • EddieD_Boston

        Also, they under-reported the incredible reception he got from Africans when he visited there during the last year of his presidency. For a guy supposedly hated all over the world they came out in the hundreds of thousand to see him. Amazingly, they yawned when Obama went there last year. Again, under-reported.

  • Mary Millikin

    Mr. Goldberg –
    I really enjoy your commentary – every time I see you on O’Reilly!!!!
    Keep up the good fight on our behalf. You are often able to clarify the murkiest issues. And please – keep the media honest.
    Mary Millikin
    Alexandria, VA

    • Missy Tucker

      Once again , PLEASE disprove ANY of what Rush, Hannity, or Beck has said , or is saying ~~ PLEASE !!! Can you ~ I hardly think so………….. Now if your talking “others” , I can’t speak for them………….

  • Lev

    I want to join my voice to those commented in this blog, who think that Obama is evil. I am not a Republican, neither a Conservative, but I am from Russia, and I see in Obama all the birth marks of a future dictator. And I also agree with those commented in this blog who thinks that there is no such a thing as “fair & balanced” toward the evil. Because the evil is a con master. For those, who do not know the history of Russian Revolution, bellow is a short lesson.
    When the leader of Russian Revolution V.I.Lenin had realized that his economic policy, that destroyed Russian economy, was threatening his power, he changed policy. He allowed some economic freedom. It was called NEP (New Economic Policy). Those on the left were very angry, those on the right praised him. Smart people on both sides new that it is not for long, because he kept all the reins. And at the very moment, when he decided that the crisis is over, he just killed NEP and established the total government control on economy.

    I apologize for my English, but hope it is clear enough.

    • Wil Burns

      You should apologize for comparing Obama to Lenin. How dare you coming to our country and insulting our president!

      • Chuck

        Hey Wil,

        I’m going to take it Lev’s comment one step further, Obama is is more like Mao than Lenin.

        Bernice, I love watching you on the Factor, keep up the great work

        • Lev

          To Will,
          First, I dare. I am the USA citizen and dare to say whatever I want to say. I came to USA as a legal immigrant fifteen years ago. I work and pay taxes. I went to the USA because I liked the USA. I liked her people and her political system, and I do not want the USA to converted into something like Russia.

          I did not insult our President. To insult means to say something bad about a person with a purpose to say something bad. I did not. I expressed my opinion. You can disagree, but you have no reason to be insulted. Many Muslims were insulted by a cartoon that depicted Mohammad as a terrorist. In protest they vandalized cars, smashed windows in embassies and promised to kill the author of the cartoon. The nice way to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion.

          I did not say that Mr. Obama is Lenin. Lenin and the political system created by him killed millions and converted Russia to a dictatorship. Mr. Obama obviously is very far from that. But Lenin in not a cast word. Lenin was a real person with real ideology. And I insist that Obama came from the same way of thinking and given the opportunity can create the same totalitarian regime that Lenin created in Russia. So, if you really disagree, argue.

          To Chuck,
          In regard of who Obama closer to ideologically I do not know. He is definitely not Hitler because Hitler was nationalist, but Obama is internationalist. But I actually do not see much difference between Lenin and Mao.

          • Wil Burns

            You called our president a dictator.You foreigners come to our country and insult our leaders? I think that is grounds for deportation! Think about that!

          • Stephen Shields Springfield, IL

            I’ll remember this next time you get on your little soap box for your favorite activity, Bush bashing.

          • Lev


            I did not call the President a dictator. He is not yet. I hope that American people will not allow this to happen.
            However I do believe that he is trying to move the country in the direction of total governmental control.

            Intimidation is not the best argument. And we foreigners are the engine of this country. If you do not have any other arguments I stop that discussion.

          • Henry

            Lev can say whatever he wants to say. After all, it’s called the 1st Amendment. And besides, he did state that he IS a U.S. citizen!

      • David

        The real insult is to Lenin. At least he had principals.

        • Ellie

          Also Lenin wrote his own books and speeches :)

      • EddieD_Boston

        Should the left apologize for comparing Bush to Hitler? Just wondering.

        • Henry

          They should, but then again, you know that’s never going to happen.

    • Nancy


      Thanks for your comments. I have noticed that people who have lived under communism or dictatorships are not too keen on the Obamavision. Doesn’t look so good close up, I imagine.
      And..its pointless talking to Wil, he never has anything insightful to say.

      • Troy

        Wow, Wil is always so supportive of illegal immigrants. But here is a guy who came here the right way and does all the right things, and he is supposed to shut up and march in lockstep with whatever Wil’s messiah says. So anyone who is not born here who insulted Bush should be deported also I guess. Hmmmm, what would your precious ACLU say about you Mr Congeniality.

  • Sheryl

    Reading most of the posts on this site makes me very uncomfortable. Yes, there is a definate media bias in America. The point is this: no one should get all of their information from the same source. Citizens should read and listen to a variety of news, commentators, read blogs (left and right) and then apply thier critical thinking skills to decide for themselves where the truth lies.

    Unfortunately, we’ve become a nation of nasty people who hurl insults and ratchet up the vitriole. This is why we cannot solve our very, very imminent and desperate problems. There is no harm in listening to an opposing viewpoint. There’s no harm in being respectful either.

    Insulting Mr. Goldberg for expressing his thoughts on the media isn’t the answer.

    • tim

      Although I see your point I don’t agree with you. The article pertains to the NYT that considers themselves the paper of record. I do not mind opinions on the editorial page or by commentators but when I read the front page of a newspaper I want the news, not a political opinion or perspective.

      Certainly the internet has affected newspapers circulation numbers but their Bias is a reason I cancelled my local paper after 30 years as a subscriber.

  • Beth

    I watched O’Reilly last night and I’m not sure I get it. Who cares if Rush, Hannity or Beck pokes fun at the president’s mustard. I’m sorry I don’t like Obama. I don’t like his policies, I don’t like the way the country is going, I’m sick of the lying and corruption and frankly maybe conservatives have just had it. I like listening to the conservative commentators it helps me vent my frustrations with this administration. We know the other media outlets won’t dare challenge this man or criticize him they are too busy powdering his butt. Why do people have a problem with not liking the president. I mean I don’t want to see him get hit by a truck but I can’t wait until his term is over.

    • Ellie

      Unfortunately the TV bosses look at the ratings – the mustard bit was fun, I have to admit. If they want to reach a larger audience they have to mix the hard core budget numbers with some arugula and mustard. Fair and balanced and with audience bigger than the extended family of the crew :)

  • Joe Cascarelli

    Regarding the Factor last night, “Goldberg too faint of heart”:

    If you means Limbaugh, Hannity and/or Beck, name the “Kool Aid” radio hosts. Who the heck are you talking about any way? As for O’Reilly, when Beck used “lie” when referring to the State of the Union last week, Bill was “uncomfortable.” What do you guys call what the president was saying? If Obama doesn’t want to be called a liar…just stop lying.

    Joe Cascarelli
    Westcliffe CO

    • Missy Tucker

      THANK YOU !!!!

  • capt jerry schmitt

    Like you on Fox. Look at it this way when you are attacked for 8years you want to fight back. Lets see Dan Quail and Sara hope you can see the reason.

  • Cindy Jensen

    Just anted to share….

  • Cindy Jensen

    My space links, some great articles on how Palin was also treated….the media smedia….especially Mrs. Huffington…….Huff, she huffs and she just wants to blow the house down…….

  • Kathleen

    I ask you Mr. Goldberg, what if Obama is evil???
    Do you think that he would come in with horns, a tail and a pitchfork? No, if he is truly evil he would come in as a good guy, maybe someone you would want to have a drink with. He would smile a lot and be very charming. He would hide his true intentions with many palatable lies. He would be exceptional at conning people.
    Now to me and many this is exactly what Obama is, a smiling, charming con man dead set on the destruction of the USA. Why, you may ask. Because it has been planned since the 60’s to bankrupt and bring the USA to it’s knees so as to take it over by usurpers.
    I do not think it is logical to believe that no evil force can come in like a Trojan horse and take over our country. I do not think it reasonable to reject the idea that we have enemies who may groom someone to become President. It is possible our enemies are intelligent and determined to infiltrate our government even at it’s highest level.
    Our Founding Fathers believed that we had to protect ourselves from all kinds of evil. Our Founding Fathers did everything in their power to ensure that this country would remain free. To keep us from being usurped by corrupted parties from within or from without they allowed for many rules in the Constitution. They knew that there had to be checks and balances. Obama has done and said many things that prove he doesn’t respect our Constition, too many to begin to write here. Our Founding Fathers believed that the taking over of our government by usurpers was a very real and dangerous possibility unless citizens remain extremely vigilant. Many of us see behind Obama’s huge smile a very dangerous man.
    Do you really think that if someone is dangerous to our country that we should go out of our way to be “fair and balanced” and not say anything unkind about that person. Do you think we should be careful not to seem like we are against everything about him? With this attitude we leave the door wide open for leaders that are extremely wicked because if we identify them as so we are automatically determined to be extremist, angry and unfair. In the mean time the wicked comes in under the guise of just another brand of American politician and soon take over and change us into a country that we no longer can recognize and all of our rights are gone.

    • Cindy Jensen

      I call it idiotitology……he is very dangerous, a very dangerous man. Obama.

    • Wil Burns

      Kathleen, Graze peacefully.

      • dinkiedow

        Bernie wants his invitation to the ball! Look what it did for O’reilly.He drank from the kool-aid fountain!

    • Lon

      So, if Obama were to keep his oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, will he have himself arrested and tried for treason?

  • Cindy Jensen

    36 accused of spousal abuse, 7 arrested for fraud, 19 have written bad checks, 117 directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses, 3 did time for assault, 71 cant get a credit card, 14 arrested on drug charges, 8 arrested for shoplifting, 21 currently defendants in lawsuits, 84 arrested for drunk driving in th……e last year. Is it the NBA Or NFL? Neither, it’s the 535 members of the United States Congress. Just something I heard….

    • Cindy Jensen

      A posting I had seen on FB

  • Cindy Jensen

    Just as an example, this is a letter generated from Feinstein, I had actually wrote her over my wishes for her to explain her FCC deal, and why her husband was involved, so if anyone has any doubts about whether they really answer their phones or talk to the FOLKS???? Here is a little bit for James O’Keefe….he is totally correct.

    Dear Ms. Jensen:

    Thank you for writing to express your views about California’s water needs and the impact of water shortages on farmers in the Central Valley. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

    As you know, this is the third year of severe drought in California. Several key reservoirs have dropped to near historic lows, and rainfall and snowpack totals are well below average. Last year, statewide precipitation was nearly 30 percent below the average annual precipitation. According to the California Department of Water Resources, the amount of water pumped south this year was 2.1 million acre-feet less than normal. The Department attributes only 500,000 acre-feet of this reduction to environmental restrictions. The remaining 1.6 million acre-feet lost was due to the natural drought conditions.

    In August, I met with farmers in Coalinga to discuss their concerns and seek their input regarding water allocations in the region. I, too, am concerned about the impacts of the water restrictions, and I believe that it is critical to provide California’s struggling agricultural communities with adequate water supply for the upcoming and future growing seasons. I have also secured funding for the Secretary of the Interior to commission an independent scientific study by the National Academy of Sciences to review the pumping restrictions that currently govern water flows in the Delta. In my view, the National Academy study should determine whether the pumping restrictions are supported by the best available science and whether there are other ways to supply more water to farmers, while offering sufficient protections for endangered species. The scientists should also look at the effects of other stressors in the Delta, including pesticides and ammonia discharges, and whether it would be appropriate to fully reexamine the biological opinions

    It may also interest you to know that I secured funding in the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to start construction of the Two Gates demonstration project and the Intertie project, which together should increase the flow of water to the Central Valley and provide near-term relief. The Two Gates project would install temporary structures in Old and Middle Rivers. If the project works as intended, more water could be pumped to Central Valley farmers without endangering the Delta Smelt. Additionally, the Intertie is a short canal that would be installed between the Federal and State canals south of the Delta to facilitate water transfers between the east and west. This flexibility could provide 35,000 acre-feet of water on average each year.

    On October 28, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill into law. In addition to funding for the Two Gates and Intertie projects, the spending bill also includes a provision that grants the Bureau of Reclamation temporary authority to approve voluntary water transfers between sellers and buyers in the Central Valley that could allow 50,000-80,000 acre-feet of water to move to those that need it. I have also introduced the “Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009” (S. 1759), which would make this authority permanent and help expedite water transfers by streamlining the environmental review process. I believe that S. 1759 will reduce unnecessary bureaucratic delays in getting water to the Central Valley communities most in need while ensuring that these transfers comply with critical environmental regulations.

    Unfortunately, there is no quick fix for the chronic water shortages devastating the Central Valley. A comprehensive, long-term plan to repair the Delta and build new water infrastructure is critical to ensuring that California can meet its current and future water needs. I believe that a sustainable approach must balance the needs of agriculture, the quality of drinking water, and the ecology of the Delta. Please know that I will keep your views in mind as I continue to work with all concerned stakeholders to find near-term and long-term solutions to address California’s water crisis.

    Again, thank you for writing. If you have additional questions or concerns, please contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

    Sincerely yours,

    Dianne Feinstein
    United States Senator

    Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at

  • Cindy Jensen

    Why didn’t the NY Times ever report this???

    Background: William Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, a radical leftist group that from 1969 to the mid-’70s conducted several bombings of government institutions. Ayers served on the group’s Central Committee. The Weather Underground bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, military installations, and police stations. In all, seven people were killed. In 1981, two police officers and one security guard were killed by members of the Weather Underground in the robbery of a Brinks truck in New York state. After Ayers married Bernardine Dohrn, also a member of the Weather Underground (who was described by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover as “the most dangerous woman in America”), they settled in Chicago.

    Fact: Bernardine Dohrn had this to say in response to the Charles Manson murders, which she romanticized as a revolutionary coup at a Flint, Mich., Weatherman War Council in December 1969: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” Dohrn later stated this was meant as a “joke.”
    Fact: In 1969, Bernardine Dohrn and other members of the Weather Underground traveled to Cuba and met with representatives of the North Vietnam and Cuban governments.
    Fact: In 1970, Ayers explained what the Weather Underground was all about: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home; kill your parents; that’s where it’s really at.”
    Fact: Both Ayers and Dohrn lived on the run from authorities from approximately 1970 to 1980. The case against Ayers and Dohrn was dropped due to illegal wiretaps and prosecutor misconduct. The FBI was conducting “black bag jobs,” or illegal break-ins, in their pursuit of the Weather Underground. Some of these black bag jobs were authorized by Mark Felt, later to be known as “Deep Throat” of Watergate fame.
    Fact: Shortly after turning themselves in, Dohrn and Ayers became legal guardians of the son of former members of the Weather Underground, Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, after they were convicted of murder for their roles in a 1981 armored car robbery. Two police officers and one Brinks guard were killed in the robbery.
    Fact: Starting in the mid-’90s, Ayers and Obama served on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project. They served together on the board for approximately seven years. Ayers and Obama were tasked with the oversight of a $100 million budget. The board, under Obama’s chairmanship the Annenberg project gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Ayers’ projects promoting alternative schools.
    [“Anderson Cooper 360,” CNN, Oct. 6, 2008]
    Fact: From 1984 to 1988, Bernardine Dohrn was employed by the prestigious Chicago law firm Sidley Austin. She was hired by Howard Trienens, the head of the firm at that time and someone who knew Thomas G. Ayers, Bill’s father. However, Dohrn’s criminal record has prevented her from being admitted to either the New York or Illinois bar. “Dohrn didn’t get a [law] license because she’s stubborn . . . She wouldn’t say she’s sorry.”
    [Chicago Tribune, May 18, 2008]
    Fact: In 1991, Dohrn was hired by Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, as an adjunct professor of law, with the title “clinical associate professor of law.” Thomas Ayers was a long-time member of the Northwestern Board of Trustees, and was named life trustee in 1987.
    [Source: Feb. 7, 2008 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC]
    Fact: In 1994, Dohrn was quoted on her political beliefs: “I still see myself as a radical.”
    [Chepesiuk, Ron, “Sixties Radicals, Then and Now: Candid Conversations
    With Those Who Shaped the Era,” McFarland & Company, Inc]
    Fact: In 1995, Obama’s first autobiography is released. In it he writes of his years in college, associating with radicals. “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets . . . When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.”
    [Obama, Barack, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,
    Random House, Pages 100-101]
    Fact: In 1995, Ayers and Dorn opened their Chicago Hyde Park home to host a political coming-out party for Barack Obama, when he ran for the state Senate. Someone who was at this party for Obama wrote that Ayers and Dohrn were launching him, “introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”
    [, Feb. 22, 2008]
    Fact: From 1999-2002, Ayers and Obama served together on a second charitable foundation, The Woods Fund. While at the Woods Fund, they gave money to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church, which Obama attended, and a children and family center, where Dohrn worked.
    [“Anderson Cooper 360,” CNN, Oct. 6, 2008]
    Fact: In a 1996 interview, one year after hosting Barack Obama’s coming-out party in their home, Ayers and Dohrn were profiled by “The NewsHour” on PBS. Ayers was asked, “Looking back, would you do it differently now?” He stated, “I doubt it . . . probably not.”
    Fact: Question to Obama in 2000, during his run for the U.S. Congress: “What is your argument, based on the one term that you served in the [Illinois] Senate so far, that makes you prepared for the Congress?”
    Answer: “I would argue . . . my experience previous to elected office equips me for the job . . . I’ve chaired major philanthropic efforts in the city, like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that gave $50 million to prompt school reform efforts throughout the city.”

    Fact: In 2001, Ayers made a $200 campaign contribution to Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama.
    Fact: In promoting his book “Fugitive Days” Ayers told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” When asked if he would “do it all again,” he said, “I don’t want to discount the possibility.”
    Fact: Just days after 9/11, Ayers was quoted in The New York Times Magazine: “This society is not a just and decent place . . . We’re living in a country where the election was stolen, and we didn’t have a mass uprising. It’s incredible. We’re all asleep. The pundits all pat themselves on the back: ‘God, what a great country’. . . It makes me want to puke.”

    Fact: In 2001, Ayers posed for a photograph in Chicago magazine, accompanying a profile of his book, which shows him stepping on an American flag.

    Fact: In a 2001 profile, a writer quotes Ayers as saying, “I think there will be another mass political movement, because I believe that the kind of injustice that is built into our world will not go quietly into the night.”
    [Chicago magazine, August 2001 online edition]
    Fact: In his 2001 memoir, “Fugitive Days,” Ayers writes of the time he took part in bombing the Pentagon. “Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue; the birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”
    Fact: In 2008, Ayers again denies he was ever a terrorist, writing on his blog: “The September 11 attacks were acts of terrorism, and the U.S. bombings in Viet Nam for a decade were acts of terrorism. Terrorism is never justifiable, even in a just cause . . . I’ve never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it. The U.S. government, by contrast, does it routinely and defends the use of it in its own cause consistently.”
    Fact: In the 2008 presidential race, Obama downplays his association with Ayers, saying that he is just a “guy who lives in my neighborhood.”
    [The Washington Post, Oct. 7, 2008]
    Fact: David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, attempted to downplay the Obama/Ayers relationship: “Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school . . . They’re certainly friendly; they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together.”
    [, Ben Smith, Feb. 26, 2008]
    Fact: Obama’s children never attended school with the Ayers children. Obama’s children are ages 9 and 6. Ayers and Dohrn have two adult children, and they adopted a son from their fellow Weather Underground terrorist Kathy Boudin. That son was born in 1981.
    Fact: Chicago’s Hyde Park residents speak of Obama and Ayers’ relationship. “Neighbors said it’s only natural that Obama would know Ayers and Dohrn, who often open their homes for gatherings filled with lively discussions about politics, arts, and social issues. Obama and his wife ‘are part of our neighborhood and part of our social circle,’ said Elizabeth Chandler, a neighbor of Ayers’.”
    [, April 17, 2008]

    • Cindy Jensen

      Why didn’t FNC focus on this soo much…..I wish they would have.

      • dinkiedow

        Wonderful,Lets see if Bernie has the grapefruits to write and article of truth of Obama’s commie supporters!He to pleased to thy to shot down the truth.Was he part of the cover-up.Every time Glenn Beck Brings Out Facts About Bernie either tries to block the truth Like this time made an ass out of himself.It’s no wonder people are getting tired of O’reilly claiming he knows 100% what Obama stands for.If he does he’s not telling or he’s also part of the cover-up.There is no way O’reilly didn’t allow these facts about Obama To stay hidden!

        • Wil Burns

          So you get your facts from Glenn Beck? Did Beck use his blackboard to explain it to you? Just wondering…

          • Troy

            I guess people who use blackboards are liars. Hmmmmmmmmmm, what about all those leftwing teachers and professors out there?
            By the way, Beck has facts to back up all his opinions, I hear him called a liar by the left all the time, but have never once heard anything to refute the facts, just name calling.

          • EddieD_Boston

            It seems to me that, after a year of Obama’s presidency, Beck was right about him from the beginning. Beck told us that Obama and his team of czars/cabinet members was a bunch of socialist loving, left-wing moonbats and I think it’s become quite obvious that they are. Obama has been called brilliant but he received his education from two Ivy League universities that epitomize what David Horowitz calls the “one party classroom” and he obviously has bought their foolishness hook, line and sinker. Given how easily Obama was brainwashed, is the really that smart?

  • Missy Tucker

    If by “FAR RIGHT” you mean Glenn, Rush, & Sean ~~ Give me ONE (1) example of a lie ! JUST ONE (1) ! DISPROVE WHAT THEY HAVE SAID & ARE SAYING ! COME ON ~ I’M WAITING !! I COULD N.O.T. BELIEVE MY EARS ON O’REILLY TONIGHT !!! WHO GOT TO YOU ?!!! HMMMMMMMMM ?!!!

    • dinkiedow

      I thought the same!the tears made me sick.Na,Na Poppy stinky!He has the nerve calling Tea Party right wing idiot liars about the commie lover a Socialist!Obama Is The Duck! maybe Bernie is the crying Quack.Myself I lost all respect for him!!

  • Dan in Phx

    Another reason a publisher like NYT doesn’t *follow* on a story broken by what they consider to be an “illegitimate competitor” is because they believe (correctly) that the competitor will crow long and hard that the great and powerful NYT is following them.

    What publishers like NYT miss in their analysis is that thinking legitimate stories mean less because they are published first by sources they don’t like, agree with, or respect. And their silence on stories broken elsewhere hurts them more.

    I believe what many people in this country miss are the days when the subtitle of the “From High Jinks to Handcuffs” NYT story would have been, “Provocative Politics Born on Campus and Online” And of course the thorough coverage of “provocative politics” would have examples of left, right, on campuses, on the Internet, funded by X, organized by Y, targeting Z, etc.

    Those days may be gone forever.

    Our only chance for a reversal to journalism’s high standards of the past may be when one publisher breaks away from the pack by learning to treat people as partners, not consumers and learning to treat publishing as a two-way relationship, not a one-way transmission. Then and only then the folks can drag the entire industry back, at least the publishers who wake up and realize when following is required for survival.

  • dinkiedow

    Well,if you think i’m a right wing nut.Than What’s that make you!I see you spent Vietnam in college and then as a reporter.Myself a Marine with 1/1/1 10/67-4/68,2nd cag lll MAF4/68-9/ 7 destroy operations.Lancaster,Kentucky l,ll&3,Security Con Thien,Neosho,Osceola,Hue City,Ford and after all those battles I was transferred to a combined action group!I had my feet & legs blown apart,lost and eye with full body shrapnel wounds and now 100% disabled. If that makes me a creep as you are so proud to follow in John Kerry’s shoes,so be it!One thing i’m totally sure you’ve not the balls to follow in mine or others that gave all to give you the freedoms that you what to call me a hate monger. as for Obama.If you walk like a socialist,hang with socialist,raised by socialist,Have home grown terrorist friends.Well you and O’reilly have your heads elesware!

  • H.C.Jolly

    The media has done a complete reversal in the last 60 years. As in “DeweyWins” in 1948. Most of you won’t remember that. There accually were some conservative newspapers then, and they didn’t always get it right. The problem is, the left shift almost never gets all the news. Only what they want. HCJ

  • Paul C

    Great point made in this article! Its been done before but you execute it so well. O’Reilly is wrong about Ayres, more that two shps passing in the night. The lamestream fluffed off & ignored that relationship too

  • Norvin Turner

    Thank you for setting O’Reilly straight on political issues, even though you will not change his mind because he will not listen. He has his mind made up, so no changing. I like your opinions.

  • AFL

    Every day, we see the influence and credibility of the NYT slipping, measurably, down further into the abyss. This is, I believe, a just consequence for compromising journalistic integrity for political agenda.

    Who’s next? CBS, NBC, and ABC aren’t doing so well, either. It would seem that, on the whole, we’re a right-of-center country and Fox, although also biased, is much more in touch with its audience.

    I, for one, would like to see the return of journalistic ethics and impartial reporting. Open letter to journalists: stop trying to manipulate the opinions of your audience and just report the news. You’re causing great harm to this representative democracy.

  • Tom B.

    The problem with NYT, is if it goes broke , Us taxpayers will wind up owning a newspaper!It’s too big to fail! It’s frightening to think, but I believe the Lame-stream media is going to be subsidize by the Goverment

  • Ellie

    On the other hand FOX did not devote much time for the Oregon cowards who voted to tax the rich. Person with pride would tax-hike everybody the same, but cowards taxed the rich only so somebody else would pay for their kid’s schools. I would like to see more on that conservative defeat in Oregon on FOX.

  • Mitchell

    As a middle aged physician, I am exactly the kind of reader the NYT desperately needs to thrive. I completely gave up on the paper and almost never buy it anymore. I used to buy it every day. Fair and balanced is a term the editors should put on gold tablets in their offices if they actually want the paper to survive, rather than serve as a propaganda tool for the Democratic Party.

    • Mitchell

      Another quick thought to the folks at The NY Times, immediately make Bernie Goldberg Editor in Chief. Of course, that has absolutely no chance of happening, which is exactly why the paper is presently going broke!

    • Wil Burns

      Hey Mitchell, So you want the paper to serve as a propaganda tool for the Republican Party, is that it? You people wouldn’t know what fair & balanced is, if it bit you in the arse!

      • Henry

        So, Wil, what would you consider as fair and balanced?

        • Mitchell

          I don’t want the NYT to serve as a propaganda tool for either party. I just want it to report the news in an unbiased fashion. Opinions should stay solely on the editorial page.

  • dave65

    I argee with Wil, cancel your subsciptions and listen to more FOX, and of course read more of Bernie’s books.

  • EddieD_Boston

    Like the Time’s little sister The Boston Globe they’ve become a newpaper for the looney fringe. It’s like MSNBC for people who can read. Their industry is dying because normal people have options for their news now. I bought the Globe every day for 25 years and stopped about a year ago. I don’t miss it even a little. This is the paper that had a pole showing Martha Coakley up by 15 points a week before the election when almost everyone I know were voting for Scott Brown. Then on the eve of the election their pole had it neck and neck when it was clear Coakley was toast. The truely amazing thing is they kept a straight face when putting these “poles” on their front page.

  • Sherry

    My reposnse to what I saw a long time ago as front page, second page and third page bias by the NYT may not solve anything, but it makes me feel better. I cancelled my subscription. I now have more free time and I am much less angry.

  • Jack Davis

    Another “oversight” of the LSM has been the “omission” of coverage of how Obama and Ayres subverted the Chicago school system through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. By all means check out Stanley Kurtz’s excellent reports. Ayres was NOT just “another guy from the neighborhood.”

  • Lee

    The problem is not one of bias, but of fundamental DISHONESTY.

    The Times tells lies of omission. Any stories that cannot be ignored are cooked.

    Were the Times a producer of sales brochures, then this would be normal and expected. Marketing firms promote the virtues of the products they are hired to back, and ignore or downplay the virtues of the competition.

    The Times however, is supposed to be a newspaper. It is supposed to be an organization that seeks to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This is the standard of honesty that true journalism requires.

    The truth does not have an agenda.

  • jason

    Great article (as usual) Bernie. The libs hadn’t a clue what to do after the Mass. Election until BO came out the State of the Union. They are energized, refueled. It was like a campaign speech “reaching out” to the base. The NYT is just following suit…and yes…they are his base.

  • S Smith

    Great Story as always, right on the money.

    These liberals take their Rules for Radicals very seriously–isolate, demean and destroy.

  • The_Q_is

    “who, along with three pals, was arrested and charged with a federal felony of trying to tamper with the phones of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana.”

    They were not charged with phone tampering. You shouldn’t report the same story-that the LSM has. That makes you the same as them….check the link above to get it straight.

  • Kathie Ampela

    James O’Keefe’s stunt was really stupid and irresponsible. What was he thinking? Yet there is nothing surprising about this story. We all know the lamebrain media are stunningly bias and do not do their job. So consequently, we will see more “investigative journalists” like O’Keefe pull stunts like this. And because perception becomes reality, no matter how many retractions the media airs and publishes the damage is already done. Drive-by Americans who don’t pay attention to what’s going on will automatically assume the worst about conservatives. And the worst part is, ACORN will appear to be the victim. They will play this card to the hilt.

    • Wil Burns

      No Kathie, What James O’Keefe did was a crime! BTW, do you ever wonder why Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe will not release the unedited Acorn tapes?

      • Kathie Ampela

        Here is some background information on how the NYT killed a politically sensitive story on the Obama/ACORN connection just before Election Day 2008:

        Here are some more examples of ACORN corruption and criminal activity:

        Some more fascinating reading, ACORN and voter fraud:

        And still more corruption:

        Want more? Read this:

        I could go on and on. Don’t talk to me about who has committed a crime here. All of this information came from the internet – NONE of it was from the lamebrain media, which further illustrates Bernie’s point about bias. I think this latest incident involving O’Keefe was really stupid and hurts the cause. But when we have a media that clearly is not interested in reporting a story the size of the ACORN corruption story, I think we will see more “media vigiliantes” who take journalism into their own hands and sometimes with harmful results, like in this case.

        • Wil Burns

          Katy, When will snake-oil salesman Andrew Breitbart release O’Keefe’s complete, unedited, illegally-obtained ACORN video tapes publicly?

          Why hasn’t he done so already?

          Could it be because (two independent investigations) found they were heavily-edited, likely illegally-obtained, heavily over-dubbed, and “no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers”?

          • Kathie Ampela


            There is overwhelming evidence of ACORN’s corruption. Here is an interesting one regarding Obama and his ties to ACORN going back to 1992:


            If we had a media that cared about telling the truth, there would be no need for the methods of the James O’Keefes of this world. It’s painfully obvious that the MSM has no interest in reporting the ACORN story. I am sitting at my computer at home and I can easily find lots of well-researched articles on the corruption of ACORN. As for Andrew Breitbart, his “Big” group of websites are more informative than all of the networks combined, in my opinion.

          • Kathie Ampela

            Here is more evidence, unrelated to ACORN, of the media’s complicity with the administration:


        • Nancy


          You go girl!!!

      • Jason

        Wow Wil, you have conclusive proof that he committed a crime? Have you submitted it to the authorities?

        Your bias is in your statements. you proclaim him guilty of a charge (wiretapping is not on the indictment – read it like I have) and decide his is to be punished for his crime. Here in America ALL of us our innocent until proven guilty, not just people you agree with.

        ACORN story? no NYT coverage for days
        O’Keefe story? immediate NYT front page coverage proclaiming him guilty……hmmm no bias that I can see!

  • Wil Burns

    Hey Bernie, There are many other newspapers to read. Just cancel your subscription, and be done with it! Get all you news from Fox news and be just as uninformed as the people that buy your books!

    • Idrid Cold

      If the Times was the only place you got your news, you wouldn’t have a clue as to who Van Jones was or why he was resigning. But if you watched FOX News, you knew that Jones was President Obama’s so-called “green jobs czar” – a screwball leftist who signed a petition calling for an investigation to learn whether then President George W. Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks on America. ”

      Interesting (and ironic) choice of words there, Mr. Burns.

    • Brian Hibbert

      Hey Will,

      Maybe should should try openning your eyes and your mind a bit. Try paying attention to multiple news outlets. Get reportage from multiple sources, then engage that organ located behind your eyes and THINK for yourself.

      You might be surprised at what you learn. There are biases on all sources, intended and unintended. What Bernie is pointing out is that sometimes bias is defined by what is NOT reported as much as by what IS reported.

      I suspect you’ve never actually READ one of Bernie’s books. Try it. Fact check him on his major assertions. THEN decide who’s uninformed.

    • EddieD_Boston

      Once again you prove that you’re a complete moron. It’s VERY obvious to any adult that Bernie does get his news from multiple sources, that’s why he comments on news stories from various news outlets on the O’Reilly Factor. As far as FoxNews goes…Beck and Hannity are as right-wing as they come. But Fox’s news department is the most balanced of ANY media outlet. Did you see the recent survey that showed that Fox is the most trusted new source. Did you hear about another survey from a few months back showing that Fox has the most balanced audience as far a political affiliation. Simple facts Wil that an adult would find interesting but a clueless fool like would never know as long as they’re gripped by Keith Olberman’s every word.

      • Wil Burns

        During President Obama’s question and answer session with Republican members of Congress at the GOP House Issues Conference, Fox News Channel was the only cable news network to cut away and not show the exchange in its entirety. However, Fox News subsequently aired all of the “Republican response” press conference held by House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) after the question and answer session with Obama.

        Yeah, ‘Fair & Balanced’ my arse!

        • Henry

          Do you know what CNN and MSNBC’s coverage was like?

          • Xian Do

            If you look at the ratings from that night….I don’t think ANYBODY knows what CNN’s & MSNBC’s coverage was like.

          • Henry

            Good point, my friend! 😀

    • Stephen Shields Springfield, IL

      Have you ever read one of Bernie’s books?

      • Wil Burns

        I read the title, that’s all I need! I’ll let you kool-aid drinkers support him. Bernie, Ain’t getting any of my money!

        • Stephen Shields Springfield, IL

          So, how do you know he and his readers are uninformed? Have you ever heard the phrase, don’t judge a book by its cover? If you don’t know what you are talking about, maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to pass judgement and make such broad generalizations. What did Bernie ever do to you? Or is it that you just can’t take someone with an opposing view point, because your liberal elitist instincts are telling you that no one could ever possibly have a better idea than you? By the way, I disagree with Bernie on several occasions, but most of it is opinion based. You can’t deny facts, and Bernie is one of the best at forming an opinion based on fact, not emotion and opinion. His most recent book, if you will read the title properly, is not a dig at our President, but a dig at the media. His biggest beef is with the media. Perhaps, if you let down your biased convictions, you could inform yourself once in a while. Our President is on a destructive path, very similar to what his predecessor was doing. His State of the Union was a pathetic attempt to rally the troops. His discussion with the GOP on Friday was even worse.

          • Xian Do

            With respect to you for at least trying to open up a civil discussion with Wil Burns…
            Don’t bother.
            Wil is a troll…and a sad excuse of one, at that.

            In his narrow, narcissistic little world that exists in his closed mind, his uninformed & unsubstantiated opinions carry more weight than the most incontrovertible fact.
            Any credible evidence you provide to bolster your argument will be blithely dismissed by him as lies or propaganda…or simply ignored.
            Same with any reasonable talking point you may make.

            Don’t waste your time with this hater….just ignore him.

          • Stephen Shields Springfield, IL

            He’ll never respond. Once you lay things out for him he has a habit of ignoring the facts or creating a straw man argument.

  • Leland

    Dead on accurate as always. You have to wonder if the NYT will get a clue before they fold.

    O’Keefe went out of his way to get nailed. With Eric Holder as top dog, nailed he will be. He is young and got a little too big for his britches. Where I come from we call that a life lesson. Too bad he didn’t learn his a little earlier.

    • Ted Kalal

      The NYT just plain cannot fold and go away. What will I do with my dead fish?

  • Holly

    Thanks for the thoughts Bernie. Yes, what Mr. O’Keefe was pretty dumb and not well-thought out, but regardless it has shown the LSM’s rabid partisanship has been gold. It’s even brought a great new blgger, Retracto, the Correction Alpaca. His work shown here:

  • BobLee

    Bernie: Add to your list McClatchey’s Raleigh News & Observer that never mentioned (home town boy) John Edwards’ affair until TWO WEEKS after even the national mainstream media was covering it.

    The prospect of “local boy makes good” was too important for them to risk disparaging him. The N&O even had a reporter imbedded in the Edwards’ campaign who never mentioned the dysfunctional meltdown taking place.