On page A3 of the Washington Post, staff writer Sam Coates seems to give anti-war/anti-Bush protester Cindy Sheehan wide latitude as to her reasons for protesting in Crawford. Mr. Coates writes: "This weekend is the culmination of the standoff between Bush and war protester Cindy Sheehan, who arrived 21 days ago. She came asking Bush to meet with her, even though he had done so before, to discuss the war. Her protest snowballed, with the arrival of Sheehan sympathizers and then pro-war demonstrators. Both sides planned major rallies over the weekend because it is the last one before Bush ends his vacation and Sheehan leaves."

Sam Coates, a British journalist on loan to the Washington Post as the annual Laurence Stern fellow, ends up with the assignment of puffing up Cindy Sheehan's forces over the weekend. His story today (typically touting how protests "expand in the heat") has one particularly annoying habit, comparing "pro-war" and "pro-Bush" protesters against "anti-war" ones. Ever notice how liberals like the Posties won't use "pro-life" too much, because that would be calling the liberals "anti-life"? Or they use "anti-abortion," but almost never "pro-abortion"? They would say well, I don't support every abortion, just the right to have one in trying circumstances. Well, the "pro-war" advocates can say exactly the same thing. I'm not for every proposed war that comes along, just the right ones in trying circumstances. Here are the Coates sentences that spur discussion:

The Washington Post headline today on Page A-4 is "Critical Votes Loom For Hill Republicans: Party to Set Cuts to Entitlement Spending." CUTS? Of course not. See the body of the article by Jonathan Weisman, where the reporter more accurately suggests the trimming of spending growth: "The Senate Finance Committee is trying to find as much as $10 billion in savings from Medicaid, trimming anticipated growth by as much as 13 percent at a time when states such as Tennessee and Missouri are throwing tens of thousands of people off their Medicaid rosters." For a longer (and much older) look at the media's daily budgetary inaccuracies, see one of my old studies here.Back then, reporters were interested in dragging the image of the new Republican congressional majority aggressively toward the seniors-buy-Alpo-to-afford-your-meds extreme: 

No subject inspires more daily journalistic fabrication than the federal budget. For the last 15 years, as federal spending mushroomed, journalists told a story echoing liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith, of a squalid public sector starved of its necessary funds. No program benefited more from the statist illusions of baseline budgeting than Medicare, which reportedly suffered "deep cuts" as it expanded -- 72 percent in the Bush years, for example.

I am an average American who has become outraged with the mainstream media. The constant negative and cynical bias has reached treasonous levels. The media no longer report news and events. Instead, they constantly vomit their personal opinions and political positions. It is absolutely ridiculous.  I can't see how a profession can be so blind to their own lack of objectivity and professionalism, and how businesses can be so arrogant and unconcerned with the pulse of their customers.

Drastic action must to be taken immediately:

- Boycott all mainstream news outlets. Newspapers, TV and magazines.

- Write letters to editors and websites demanding them to change their ways.

- Encourage all friends and family to do the same. We must get momentum.

- Donate and encourage friends and families to donate to groups like MRC, ProtestWarrior, and local and national GOP.