An Epitaph For Journalism

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers" ~ Thomas Jefferson

A couple of weeks ago, I received two traffic citations for running red lights. On the first traffic stop, The policeman was wrong, and I told him he was. But then, I dropped the matter. One cannot argue with a cop. It only makes the situation worse. (Just ask Henry Louis Gates) I will go to court, and I will argue my innocence. I will have pictures to present for evidence that the light was not red when I entered the intersection.

The second violation, I will not contest. I did run a red light. I wasn't paying attention and I sailed right through. I have no excuse. I am guilty of that charge.

I find it interesting that some people who have no integrity will fight tenaciously against charges even when it is obvious they are guilty as sin.

I find it incredible that the Media will often back those same people despite their obvious guilt.

By the same token, the media will often go to great lengths to implicate certain other people whether there is evidence of any wrong doing or even if there is only a mere suggestion of a possible ethics violation.

The incessant unproven accusations (20 at last count) against Sarah Palin, to use one glaringly perfect example. All twenty have been dismissed as unfounded, by the way.

It depends, apparently, on their political affiliation.

The Associated (de)Pressed has finally become blatant in their Liberally biased reporting, if they weren't already. Up until recently, one would have to dig a little and pay fairly close attention to find the Liberal bias in the AP's news stories, but recently, they have come out of the closet so to speak, as an absolutely blatant Liberally biased news organization.

Case in point:

The recent AP story about the guilty verdict in the bribery trial of former Democrat Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana. Read this:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Aug. 6) - A jury handed federal prosecutors a victory in finding an ex-congressman guilty of bribery, racketeering and other charges, four months after a corruption conviction against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was tossed aside in an embarrassing blow to the Justice Department.

(Emphasis mine).

Is this obvious or what? Liberal bias is supremely evident in the aforementioned emphasis. Why was it necessary to mention the overturning of Ted Steven's conviction, and why is that considered an embarrassing blow to the Justice department, anyway?

And, how does a decision by the Justice Department embarrass the Justice Department?

I thought reporters were supposed to stick to the facts and leave editorializing out of the report.

As far as the news story about the Guilty verdict in William Jefferson's case is concerned, I don't think that was a surprise to anyone. I mean, $90,000.00 was found in Jefferson's freezer! How else could anyone explain that?

But the charges against Ted Stevens were questionable, even though, from what we've been told by the AP, It certainly appeared that he was indeed corrupt.

But now, I'm not so sure we've been given the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The pen really is mightier than the sword.

It could well be that the only thing Ted Stevens is guilty of is being a Republican.

Sean Hannity was right.

Journalism has died in this country.