Andy

I have a current example of the media practicing the opposite based on something I'm watching right now.

Fox News is reporting on Air America going bankrupt and having possibly shady operating procedures. This is not national news, folks. All it does is solidify the belief of most liberals that Fox News is an ultra-conservative racket. They're shooting themselves in the foot with this segment.

What, you don't think it's news that they financed their payroll with money from a New York boys and girls club that they have never paid back?

Fox is only ultra-conservative because they report it when no one else does. What major news outlet didn't cover that Rush Limbaugh had a problem with prescription drugs?

Both sides behave badly, yet it seems that conservatives get the most exposure when they do. So, would the solution would be that no one reports wrongdoing on either side, rather than the left screaming "gotcha!" every chance they have and the right to be forgiving and accepting when the tables are turned - to be better people and have the moral highground?

If both sides behave badly, it's a benefit to both to be able to purge and disavow that which gives them a bad name. So, perhaps equal time for scandals left and right would fix this. But does this really happen in the media?

Does it really solve anything - in Foley's case, yes, he's out of office and may be indicted, Hastert might get the boot, in William Jefferson's case 100k in the freezer and an FBI sting later - I think he's been indicted, Sandy Berger still destroyed documents from the national archives and I don't know what will happen to him, Stubbs still had sex with an underage page and was repeatedly elected thereafter and is being praised in his obituaries to this very day, we all know about Kennedy and Clinton and what they did had no ill effects on their careers, Biden plagerized and he's probably going to run in 2008.

Now, just do you hear more about and whose careers are truly ended by scandal?

All of the above truly deserved to have their political careers ended. (Hastert is questionable right now.)

So then no, it is not possible for said institutions to operate under these principles?

I used the Fox example because I happened to be tuned in at the time of my comment. Sure, Air America is a mess, but you can bet that Fox is going to pay for airing that a lot more than Air America, am I right?

I saw a 60 Minutes tonight that did the same thing, only more grievously. First they essentially proclaimed the innocence of the Duke players in that rape case, then shouted "vote Democrat" by doing a soft interview with a guy who worked for Bush and left the fold.

... but it is CBS, not Bush, that goes down a few notches in my book, which again illustrates the point of the proverb.

You and I are not like most Americans.

I won't argue with that, but it is not most Americans that have to recognize these things, it is the editors of the content for the networks and newspapers and the bloggers.

A perfect example that you'll relate to right away can be found in the actions of Senator John Kerry since the 2004 elections, particularly over the past month or so. I'd bet just about anything that you've seen the video of Kerry on Real Time with Bill Maher used for comedic/derisive purposes. Kerry is the only one really losing from that appearance. Sure, he'll always have a cadre of very liberal supporters who don't care, but the people in the middle sure do. Since his change in tactics, Kerry has become more a laughing stock than a serious political challenger.