I agree with every word:

But when the Right calls the "elite" media "liberal" it's really talking about the media's class bias, not it's political ideology.

And, the fact is, the media DOES reek with class bias. And that is what makes the Right's attacks effective.

Unfortunately, the Democrats and the Left in general, while rightly dismissing the notion that the media is ideologically liberal, and occasionally criticizing the self-serving actions of its corporate ownership, NEVER attack the media for, or defends its own supposedly more working class and poorer constituencies from, the media's class bias.

Have you ever heard one Democrat challenge the media on its coverage (or lack thereof) of labor issues? Point out demeaning portrayals of the working class? Castigate pundits who throw the perjorative "white trash" around without thought or embarassment? No.

charges of Media bias resonate, with strong merit, with Clinton supporters. Attacking the Media implicitly appeals to Hillary Clinton supporters as well.

There is recognition that the Media shamelessly opposed Hill's primary bid.  And then there is straight up pettiness, of a degree more befitting a Bush sycophant than a Democrat.

Those for whom "media bias" is a strong enough appeal to influence their vote will deserve a McCain Administration more than any Americans.  All ought to be able to agree with that.

I have a question.  If the media is so biased against McCain, why do they call him a Maverick?  Why do they, almost all of them, continually push the meme that National Security issues are a strength of his bid for the Presidency?  Why do his Social Positions always fly under the radar?

I did find this after a google search in politico:

Democrat Joe Biden, in what he intended as self-deprecating remark, observed, "There's a gigantic difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent. ... She's good looking."

So the right can pass out buttons at the convention with the following :HOTTEST Governor, Coldest State" and Biden cannot make a self deprecating comment

* A spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women, noting Palin's opposition to abortion rights and support of other parts of the social conservative agenda, told Politico, "She's more a conservative man than she is a woman on women's issues. Very disappointing."

NOW is not the MSM and they are entitled their opinion, but again not the MSM.

Liberal radio host Ed Schultz used the words "bimbo alert" to refer to Palin, and the Huffington Post featured a photo montage of Palin with the headline, "Former Beauty Queen, Future VP?"

Is Ed part of the MSM?

* CNN's John Roberts recently pondered on air: "Children with Down's syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?"

John Roberts is out of bounds here and while some may think it an appropriate question, most women are scratching their heads saying "what about the husband's responsibility" rightfully so.

So after 1 hour of searching for ATTACKS from the MSM I am coming up empty.  

This is definitely a perfect time to resurrect the wendy's campaign, "Where's the beef"?

The crap coming out of the McCain campaign and some of the posters here is simply misleading.  It is a well orchestrated diversion to pull people away from the fact that she is not ready to be interviewed and needs to get up to speed on the issues.  

And they are winning that campaign not because of accuracy but because of the carry over from HRC's negative coverage.

Blogs are a wasteland of communicating misinformation.  Very little analysis and lots of hyperbole.  Very little factual presentation, yet lots of opinion and finger pointing.  

McCain has a lot of balls saying that families should not be questioned when a few years ago he said "Chelsea is so ugly because Janet Reno is her father".

According to Rasmussen, fully 68% of voters believe that "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win." And -- no surprise -- 49% of those surveyed believe reporters are backing Barack Obama, while just 14% think the media is in the tank for Sen. McCain.

There is too much emphasis on winning in this country and not enough attention as to the path to get there.  

More and more, I think we are going to get what we deserve.

While the media are no great shakes right now, the American people, by and large, are worse.  Myself included.  

 1) makes the media kowtow so they don't criticize republicans
 2) to be "fair and balanced" the media goes overboard being critical of democrats
 3) because of (1) and (2), a counter-factual general meme now pervades the American psyche of 'republican = good, democrat = bad'
 4) it makes citizens think the media is doing their job being critical, at least of republicans, when in fact they aren't.
 5) it rallies the republican troglodyte base around their favorite thing - believing they're being persecuted.

THOMAS: Not that we need more evidence of media bias, but according to the "Wall Street Journal" on Friday, Andrea Mitchell got on MSNBC and said, only the uneducated will vote for Sarah Palin. I rest my case.

And this is what Mitchell said:

Mitchel: Well, they think now that they have a story. They have a story of a working mom, she is a colorful character, an Annie Oakley... you know, Annie get your gun. They love her story, but when she tried to talk about Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, in western Pennsylvania, yesterday at a rally with conservative Republican voters, Hillary Clinton was booed. So, she can use the Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro analogy if she wants to in interviews, she cannot use that at Republican rallies.

She is not appealing to the same women who were really voting or supporting Hillary Clinton on ideological issues but they think that they can peel off some of these working class women, not college educated, who, the blue collar women who were voting for Hillary Clinton and may be more conservative on social causes.

So who is being unfair here?  Who is being intellectually dishonest?