The real media bias

Last year, Bob Baker of the silly named 'Protect Washington Now' won't even be submitting the signatures they collected for their anti-immigration effort. There is no indication whatsoever from folks on the ground that he is anywhere near the 150,000 signatures that he claims, yet the press lets him keep regurgitating the same nonsense. He gave the same over-hyped number last year, when in reality he'd only collected several thousand signatures. Ah, there the media goes again. And therein lies one of the most critical problems with American democracy, such as it is.

So even though this -- and undoubtedly other -- immigrant initiatives come up short in their efforts to remake the states in their far right image, the media treats them as though they are a real and important effort. Yet, when someone questions the Bush regime or ask outright direct questions, like the media does of say a progressive filmmaker like Michael Moore.

What happens? The media read the memos from their corporate and political bosses -- can we bring this word back and call them what they really are -- dutifully asks every imposing, direct question about the position/person/effort/activism that they possibly can. Now, I am not saying that the media should not do so. Vigorous questioning is important to a free, democratic press. Rather my problem is with the free pass that the GOP, Bush and Cheney administration, and other right-wingers repeatedly get.

The Nation and other progressive blogs, media etc... most notably Media Matters have consistently demonstrated that the good ol' U.S. of A. is actually not swinging rightward. In fact, on most critical political, social, and cultural issues, the public sides with the democratic party, liberals, and on subjects such as health care (which Mr. Moore is highlighting with his film, SiCKO) that the public side in surprisingly large numbers with progressives.

Now that we have the usual media over analysis that actually tells us nothing of substance (are you out there Mr. Brooks? Mr. Limbaugh? Mr. Savage?) about how Bush -- the media free pass president -- was within his right as an executive to give Libby a commutation. But the media, again and again, are missing the point. Just because he could do it, does not mean that he should.

And a real investigation would ask very hard questions of Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and all of the others who gave millions to Mr. Libby's defense fund before even knowing if and what the result of a conviction would create.

Where is the media's coverage of what this means for all the right-wing criticism of Bill Clinton or the supposed illegality of the Clintons (you know the stuff that was never proved...)? Irony comes in many forms, right? All of which was orchestrated and created by a well Scaife supported attack campaign.

Where is the media's analysis of why it was in the Mr. Bush's best interest to commute Libby?

Where is the media's examination of the contradiction of Mr. Bush using harshness as his reasoning for the commutation? Does this mean that all defense attorney's can use this? Or does this just apply to govermental-quasi-white collar criminals?

So, just as with the anti-immigration efforts around the country, where is the media? Who is asking the tough questions?