The Fix Is In (Update)

Shameful, if true, and I have no reason to doubt it and every reason to believe it. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has posted the text of an email from a reader that works in a major newsroom, confirming that “every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true.”

The Anchoress also discusses this, adding that she has a couple friends that work in the MSM who confirm this sort of attitude.  I’ll leave it to you to click through and read the respective texts.

It is one thing to ‘know’ that there is bias, but to learn that it exists to this degree and is this open is just flabbergasting.  I had previously dismissed claims of organized bias on this scale as paranoid, but it seems that I was wrong.

I am not an expert in federal election law, but if these so-called ‘news’ organizations are actively supporting Obama, it seems to me there may be some violations.  A ‘free press’ does not look much different from a 527 if they are openly advocating in this way; it seems like Obama is receiving a whole lot of advertising that is not being reported.

Probably nothing to be done.  Nothing, that is, but shouting this from the rooftops and letting as many people as possible know about this.

h/t Ace, Hot Air

UPDATE:

I’ve been thinking about this, and we are actually probably better off than anytime in the last thirty years or so.  When technology advanced to the stage where most people where able to get their news from a national source (i.e., early CBS on the radio, etc.), those sources began accruing a great deal of power.  However, having that power depended on their being perceived as impartial and fair.

Newspapers historically have been extremely partisan, but also very open about it.  Every major city, and most smaller towns as well, had at least two papers that competed.  Each backed a different party (or, more accurately, was merely an organ of that party).  Around the turn of the century there was a movement toward reporters being objective journalists rather than partisan hacks, and newspapers gradually became respectable.  The bias did not simply disappear, people being people, but an effort was made to be fair.

For a few decades the national media prided itself in being impartial, and actually was fairly good.  At some point, perhaps related to the activism of the ’60s and ’70s (this is pure speculation here), news organizations still strove (or pretended to strive) for objectivity, but reporters and editors gradually started becoming more partisan again.

By the time Reagan was elected, the media clearly showed its bias against him, all the while claiming objectivity.  The news media is regressing back to the days of blatant partiality, but with the vast majority of news organizations aligned with the Democratic party — if there was a relatively even split, there would be no reason to worry.

Today, there is the internet and alternative media.  This is why I say we are probably better off now than in a long time.  Twenty years ago, you may have been pretty sure that a media story was bunk, or at least so slanted as to bear only a passing resemblance to the truth, but how could you find out for sure?  Now, however, you can get online and find any point of view and (with a bit of sifting) find out what really happened.

Does that mean the media bias does not matter?  No, because the MSM is mostly push media (delivered to your doorstep or television) while the internet is a pull medium, requiring active effort.  But most people know you cannot trust the MSM and can find the facts if you go online.