I complain a lot about the liberal media. But I complain a lot about all liars and distorters. It’s what I write about most of the time. That the liberal media is often the subject of my complaints is to be expected.

Liberals are fervent rationalizers of the overwhelming liberal bias in the media. First, they will point to bias conservative media sources – most often Fox News. Obviously, there are lonely voices in the liberal media wilderness. When a liberal tells you this, ask him to name two other conservative networks. Then ask him to name two other conservative newspapers besides the Wall Street Journal. It doesn’t work, however, on the Internet because they have time to research the questions and dig up some answer. I’d still be surprised at which sources they cite. None are top of mind.

Second, they will demand that you cite stories with a liberal bias. I do, regularly. The liberals respond by repeating their Fox News comments every time.

I have seen two studies on the subject of media bias. Both recognized a liberal bias in the media, but one was, I think, more accurate (Dang, I’ve linked to it in an article here before, maybe part MMXX1). It looked for the general trend of the sources rather than word-by-word dissection. I think it is more accurate because the greatest source of bias in the media is not in their words – they are skilled in the art of subtle propaganda and the bias in their words is hard for most people to put their finger on. Their greatest bias is in their choice of topics – which stories to report, how many times they are reported, and importantly, which stories not to report.

Bill O’Reilly brought another example to my attention in his article, "A Journalistic Cover-up."

Recall Ted Haggard, the Colorado preacher that was out-ed by a gay prostitute he frequented? Headline after headline scandalized the man, embarrassed his family and friends, and tainted everyone that attended his church. The liberal media had a field day because he was a conservative and had spoken out against gay marriage.

Ask a liberal why the media chose to sensationalize that story and he’ll claim it is not liberal bias. He’ll claim the man’s public position against gay marriage as the pastor of a large congregation thrust him into the public spotlight, and his supposed "hypocrisy" deserved to be exposed.

Sooo, what would a fair media do if a liberal spokesperson, who had also thrust himself in the public’s eye on a touchy issue, was caught in criminal activity that is much, much worse in most people’s minds than was Haggard’s?

The answer: bury it. The liberal media wouldn’t report it at all. And certainly not with any headlines, or more than once, if they did report it.

The proof is in the arrest on February 23 this year of attorney Charles Rust-Tierney. Tierney is the former director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Virginia. Seems the man also likes to wank-off to images of prepubescent girls being violently raped. The FBI tracked his credit card purchases of child porn over the Internet and found the downloaded images burned onto DVDs at his home.

According to Mr. O’Reilly, "The only major liberal news organization to cover the story was The Washington Post. It ran a small mention of it in the second section of the paper, essentially burying the situation. The New York Times ignored the story entirely. So did NBC News, CBS News, and CNN. ABC News mentioned it on its web site." I Googled his name and found that to be the case – a bunch of small blogs and those two media stories.

Here’s the catch: Rust-Tierney was a prominent spokesman against Internet filtering in public libraries! When the issue was in the legislature and courts in his jurisdiction, he spoke out against restricting children’s rights to see anything they wanted on the Internet at public libraries.

Would any liberals care to explain this to me? How about if we just eliminate those things that are similar between the two cases, so we can hope to see what differentiates them in the liberal media’s mind. They are both public figures. Both are prominent spokesmen on current issues. Both were embarrassed.

So, how do they differ? Well, one had his completely legal, intensely private relationship exposed to the public. The other had a completely illegal, intensely private perversion exposed to the FBI. One spoke out in support of current legal policy supported by a significant majority of Americans. The other spoke out against current legal policy supported by a significant majority of Americans. One had a consensual adult sexual relationship. The other fantasized about non-consensual violent sexual relationships with children and invested in companies that film those acts.

What does this mean? Do liberals want to encourage raping little girls and child porn? Do they want to discourage gay men from having sexual relationships? What are they thinking to scandalize the gay man, but ignore the child raping investor?

------------

About the author Tom Pain: Just an American boy with so much common sense, it hurts.

Email: thomas.pain@hughes.net

Comment on this article here!

------------

All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal).

	Web useless-knowledge.com