- Michelle, ma belle, has a good rundown on the NYT's investigation into the adoption records of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' kids. She entitles it The Muckraking N.Y. Times, though I would be sorely tempted to use two or three more pungent and profane adjectives.
- On a related note, Sensible Mom makes some lucid (and, it seems
to me, absolutely correct) observations on the huge double
standards evinced by the media in covering lefties versus
The media treat every liberal cause as noble and every conservative cause as mean-spirited, and therefore, ethical lapses by liberals are overlooked, quickly forgiven or completely ignored for the "better good." That mindset is at the core of all media coverage. You can see it happening with the Air America story. The media, as a group, agree with the liberal agenda and assume that the intention of liberal organizations are honorable. Therefore, it is presumed that an ethical breach by a liberal is an anomaly and not worthy of investigation or criticism, especially if it will cripple the agenda in any way.
Contrast that with their treatment of conservatives where any hope or possibility of wrongdoing is investigated with gusto. In this role, the media puff out their collective chests and pursue the "truth" at all costs. Today, we see the NYT investigating the adoption records of John Robert's children. They call it a standard background check, but it isn't. No one needs to know about their adoptions to consider his nomination. What the NYT is doing is what they always do -- they are holding a conservative up to a higher standard than anyone else.
But do go read the whole thing. (Via Prof Bainbridge.)
- Lee Harris, writing at Tech Central
Station, has a moderate and sensible article
in response to Dubya's comments about Intelligent Design (ID) from a
few days back. And the American Spectator website reprints an article
from their magazine written by Dan Peterson, sympathetic to ID.
I'm skeptical of ID, but anti-ID folks don't do themselves any favors when they confront ID advocates with question-begging, contempt, and name-calling instead of evidence-based arguments. Examples abound in Peterson's article.