As noted at this NewsBusters post last week, when it became known that President Bush was reading "Mao: The Unknown Story," Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times pigeonholed the book:

The book might at first seem an odd choice for Mr. Bush, whose taste in biography, like that of other American presidents, runs to previous occupants of the Oval Office. But it is not so surprising given that "Mao: The Unknown Story" has been embraced by the right as a searing indictment of Communism.

As you can see from this October post that addressed Times columnist Nicholas Kristof's review of the book, it hasn't exactly been "embraced" by bitter-enders on the left. Despite the book's painstakingly thorough chronicle of Mao's horrible death toll, Kristof still holds that Mao was "not all bad" for China (most of this quote is also at this "TimesWatch Worst of 2005" NewsBusters post):

But Mao’s legacy is not all bad. Land reform in China, like the land reform in Japan and Taiwan, helped lay the groundwork for prosperity today. The emancipation of women and end of child marriages moved China from one of the worst places in the world to be a girl to one where women have more equality than in, say, Japan or Korea. Indeed, Mao’s entire assault on the old economic and social structure made it easier for China to emerge as the world’s new economic dragon.

Just like that, 60-70 million deaths become collateral damage in the (fictional) advancement of women's equality (see: "one-child policy") and supposed economic rebirth (which didn't begin until years after Mao's death, and never would have happened while he remained alive, even if he had lived to be 100).

What I'm getting from all this is that "Mao: The Unknown Story" is being "embraced by the right" because it is the unvarnished if uncomfortable truth, while far leftists, in the face of facts that can only be disputed at the margins, if at all, aren't happy with the book, because believing it would force them to let go of their 1960s romantic notions of Mao. Fortunately for those steeped in reality, you can be an open-minded person on either side of the political spectrum and accept the profoundly important work the authors, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, have done to shine the light of truth on one of history's most evil people.

Liberal media bias isn't limited to news reporters. At least when it comes to the Boston Globe, it clearly extends to the sports department.

Boston Globe sports reporter Dan Shaughnessey just completed an interview with the edgy Jim Rome, host of the eponymous 'Jim Rome is Burning' on ESPN. The topic was Detroit's worthiness as a Super Bowl site. Shaughnessey vigorously defended Motown in these terms: "Detroit is a real city. You can get the New York Times here."

In closing, Shaughnessey took a gratuitous swipe at recent Super Bowl host city Jacksonsville, calling it a "yahoo town" that should never have been granted hosting privileges.

Two weeks ago, when the state of Virginia reported that DNA evidence underlined that executed murderer-rapist Roger Keith Coleman was actually guilty, Geoff Dickens revisited the goopy 1992 Time cover story by reporter Jill Smolowe making a passionate case for Coleman's innocence: "the courts have so far failed miserably. It is quite possible he will die, the victim of a justice system so bent on streamlining procedures and clearing dockets that the question of whether or not he actually murdered Wanda McCoy has become a subsidiary consideration."

Now that Smolowe looks a wee bit foolish, it's no surprise that when National Review's John J. Miller called to ask her about her story for the February 13 edition of NR, she abruptly claimed amnesia:

     As I was doing research for an paper, I started to wonder just what my peers felt about this issue.  I am interested in both sides of the arguement, maybe more-so to left side of it, as I don't quite understand their point of view. Please, lets keep things civil. Also, if you have any resource ideas that I may find useful, please post them.

     So, what are your arguements for and against supply side economics? What are your reasons?  It is true that we saw the largest period of growth in U.S. history following Reagan's implementation of supply side economics, but do you feel that it was Reagans doing, or were there other factors that were more relevent?

     We also saw growth during the Clinton 'tax and spend' years. Was that growth due to "goverment creation", spurred by the highest tax increase in U.S. history?  Or were there other mitigating factors?

In a country where freedom of the press is nearly absolute, it's always funny to see media figures act as if their speech is under threat by the mere fact that a Republican occupies the White House, as if by sheer force of his presence in a position of power, George W. Bush by thought alone (amazing considering his tremendous alleged stupidity), can see to it that all contrary speech is snuffed out of existence.

One media figure has enough of a tendency to do this alone but get a room full of them together and the paranoia and political naivete are thick enough to cut with a knife. Newsweek obtained such a result a few days ago when it got several Oscar nominated directors together for a chat. George Clooney and Steven Spielberg provided the bilge to go along with the coffee:

Following up on Tim Graham's NewsBusters report on a Washington Post article about a study claiming "that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did," I have a few questions I wish the Post story had answered.

Here's three paragraphs from the article, explaining that study. As you read them, ask yourself: Does the conclusion of paragraph three follow from what is said in paragraphs one and two?

For their study, Nosek, Banaji and social psychologist Erik Thompson culled self-acknowledged views about blacks from nearly 130,000 whites, who volunteered online to participate in a widely used test of racial bias that measures the speed of people's associations between black or white faces and positive or negative words. The researchers examined correlations between explicit and implicit attitudes and voting behavior in all 435 congressional districts.

After posting impressive ratings when the show first debuted, ABC's presidential drama "Commander in Chief" has fallen in the ratings.

The New York Daily News reports that ABC will "shelve the show March 7 to make room for a new comedy, 'Sons & Daughters.'"

If they would make room for a Republican president, perhaps more people would be interested in watching the show.

Although Geena Davis received a Golden Globe for best drama actress, the vote of the American people was different.

In classic Hollywood speak, the show is being "put on hiatus," reports the Daily News.

Dan Rather spoke in Los Angeles -- and said all the same things about how journalism needs a "spine transplant" -- it sounds better than journalism needs "document authentication before broadcast." But the next time someone in the media elite mocks the president for cheerleaders-only town hall meetings, see how the Los Angeles Times notes the Rather talk went, late in their article:

He appeared pleased when, in a question-and-answer period, members of the audience, who like CBS viewers in general tended to skew older, told him how much they had admired him during his 44-year career at CBS. A speaker series producer and a member of Rather's entourage chose the questions from written submissions before the event began, said Dan Savage, managing director of SR Productions, which booked the event.

Obliquely referring to Rather's troubles, one member asked what role bloggers had played in his career. "Their influence was less than perceived," he said, equally obliquely. Some bloggers, he said, have found blogging to be "a good way to further a particular political agenda. It's not a crime," he said. But the public should recognize "there's a new opportunity here to manipulate public opinion."

In Arianna Huffington’s blog this morning, the former devout conservative turned extreme liberal activist wrote about a conversation she had yesterday with actor John Cusack while they were both watching NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Cusack made such a strong observation in Huffington’s view that the latter decided to inform all of her readers of his unprecedented wisdom and political insight: “‘In order to protect his brand as a hard-charging, truth-probing journalist,’ he said, ‘Team Russert needs to do an Oprah: haul back on his show Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the politicians who've lied to him on the set and damaged his credibility and confront them straight out.’"

For those unfamiliar with the reference, famed television talkshow host Oprah Winfrey invited an author back onto her program last week to eviscerate him for “duping” her and the nation concerning the fictitious parts of his non-fiction bestseller that Oprah had enthusiastically recommended to her book club.

With all the speculation about Katie Couric moving to the CBS Evening News anchor desk, a guy like me whose shtick is to cover her antics at the Today show could be concerned about his blogging future.

Not to worry. Flipping over to Good Morning America today reassured me: there is an apparently inexhaustible supply of liberal media bias and the talking heads to spout it.

The topic was President Bush's impending State of the Union Address. In assembling its panel, GMA resorted to an old MSM trick - coupling a fire-breathing liberal opponent of the president with someone ostensibly from the Republican side, but who in many ways is an opponent-in-disguise. And so it was that host Charlie Gibson's guests were James Carville and Bay Buchanan, who in her own right and on behalf of brother Pat have been antagonists of the Bushes on many an issue from Iraq, to Israel to trade for many years.

On the Monday "Science" page of the Washington Post, reporter Shankar Vedantam offers the liberal Post readership some comforting news: studies show conservative voters are motivated by racism. That's not in the first paragraph. It sneaks in about halfway through the article, and explains the headline "Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases."

[T]hat study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.

"What automatic biases reveal is that while we have the feeling we are living up to our values, that feeling may not be right," said University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek, who helped conduct the race analysis. "We are not aware of everything that causes our behavior, even things in our own lives."

Click here for instructions on running Gaggle daily on your own site. There's also an archive of previous toons available here.

Democrats have figured out how to use the interwebs thingy. Staffers of Democrat representative Marty Meehan have gone into Wikipedia and removed all the (truthful) things they didn't like. Meanwhile, politicians wag a finger at Google for basically doing the exact same thing. You probably haven't heard anything about this story though because it was a Democrat and unless Karl Rove changes his Wikipedia entry it won't get much further than the Lowell Sun.

Bob Woodruff and his camera operator, Doug Vogt, were hit by an IED today while recording a stand-up. Godspeed to their recovery, but I have to wonder why this video hasn't aired yet. If it were anyone else it would be exploited with a constant loop. No doubt someone at ABC is rethinking the concept of privacy, unfortunately that concept of privacy will never be extended to any of us. While the impious media will probably plea for Woodruff and Vogt tonight, those of us with a soul will say a prayer for them.

Media darling and Court TV founder Steven Brill came out and said journalism school "is a giant waste of time." Huzzah.

Arianna is still taking shots at Tim Russert for being a pushover. NYDN would have you believe Russert blew a gasket, puffed up his chest and had his publicist send the NY Daily News a "ballistic email". The nearly too-hot-for-primetime email said "The last time we heard from Ms. Huffington, she was hiring private eyes to investigate reporters." Oooh, snap. Liberals can't even get along with themselves.

But that's not all. On the heels of the WashPost having to shut down comments due to liberals attacking liberals, Columbia Liberal Journalism Review took a swipe at Katie Liberal Couric for mentioning Abramoff funneled money to Democrats as well as Republicans:

Couric did, however, spend over eight minutes of air time this morning searching for "the best pants for every behind," exploring "why some outfits make women's derrieres look too large," and letting female viewers know how to make the best of their butts.

Thanks, CJR, for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed in the last twenty years that The Today Show was filled with mindless nonsense stories.

Don't let the title of the article by Washington Post staff writer Dan Balz fool you. Though the title reads: "Bush's Midterm Challenge--Rebuilding Public Support May Bolster GOP Candidates," one comes away after reading the piece thankful that the elections are not till November.

Still, one cannot help but feel anything but optimistic if one depended on such as the mainstream media for its cues.

Balz opens the piece in typical Bush-bashing fashion, a hallmark of liberal writers and observers, stating that the State of the Union Address to be given by the president on Tuesday is "eagerly anticipated by Democrats and fraught with worries for Republicans, whose hopes in November may depend in large part on how successfully Bush can turn around his troubled presidency."

On Friday, the New York Times released results from its recent, comprehensive poll done along with CBS News. The Times devoted an entire article to this poll, and put it smack dab on the front page. Yet, the article curiously left out a few details that the Times editors must have thought were unimportant. For instance, 52 percent of those polled approve of the way the president is prosecuting the war on terrorism. This is the highest approval the president has received in this regard from a CBS News/New York Times poll since before Hurricane Katrina hit. This is quite surprising given all of the attention given to NSA eavesdropping over the past six weeks, and last week’s release of the Osama bin Laden tape.

Another finding of this poll that the Times omitted from its Friday article was that 50 percent of respondents said U.S.