On Friday, The Washington Post explored the guilt of the millionaire liberal in a story on the front of the Metro section headlined: "Grappling with a wealth of guilt: Young heirs seek moral balance between inherited windfalls, social responsibilities."

But one subject in Ian Shapira’s story of "moral balance" is working for the Marxists in El Salvador. The caption under his photo read: "Burke Stansbury, who inherited $1 million in stock, works at the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador in the District."

Shapira never explains that CISPES was founded in 1980 to support the Marxist guerrillas of the FMLN, or even that this death-squad-turned-political-party now holds the presidency of that democracy. It’s merely a group "devoted to labor issues," reported the Post:

Last year, Sally Quinn of the Washington Post found it "devastating" on PBS that Barack Obama would abandon his sulfurous religious mentor Jeremiah Wright, a man "lionized by some of the great white theologians in this country." Quinn questioned how Wright’s allegedly racist opponents can call themselves Christians: They "go to their white churches, and you wonder how they can call themselves Christians and still look at other people as though they are inferior."

In her role as the co-creator of the Post’s "On Faith" blog, Quinn is at it again, suggesting on Tuesday Sarah Palin was a rotten Christian in her book Going Rogue. "Palin's book is a screed against everyone who ever done her wrong." She jokes nastily that maybe it was God’s plan for Palin to "go rogue" from the tenets of Christianity:

Here is more proof there is a vast chasm between Fox News and Fox Entertainment in Hollywood. In Wednesday night’s episode of Glee, a heartless Christian dad character is – of course – a big Glenn Beck watcher. The biggest liberal joke on the series is the pregnant cheerleader Quinn who leads the "Celibacy Club," who is preparing for the chastity ball, but the secret of her pregnancy gets out at the dinner table.

I don’t have the precise Beck quote, but it was an "ooh, Glenn Beck’s on" moment. TV Squad summarizes: "But the whole thing brought to light a lot about Quinn's home life: her dad watches Glenn Beck, is a heartless loser, and her mom won't stand up for her. That's all the important stuff."

In fact, she is thrown out of the house, because that’s apparently what Beck-watching Christians do when their teens get pregnant. They’re uninvolved, clueless alcoholics who don’t really know their children.

Last week, NPR president Vivian Schiller took questions briefly on washingtonpost.com about the taxpayer-funded radio network. When the liberal-bias question came up, she claimed "NPR tilts left! NPR tilts right! Frankly, we hear it equally from both sides -- or should I say from ALL since most issues are not that linear. The fact is, NPR takes NO sides."

When someone discussed the regular commentaries of NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr, she claimed: "Dan Schor [sic] is a liberal commentator. I will not deny that is true. So what do we do about that? We balance his views with those of conservative guest commentators who frequently appear on our airwaves."

But what if those conservative guests just happen to take a stand NPR likes? Case in point: on Tuesday night’s All Things Considered, NPR touted a Sarah Palin book review by "conservative columnist" Rod Dreher, who concluded: "She quotes her father's line upon her resignation this summer as Alaska's governor: Sarah's not retreating, she's reloading. On evidence of this book, Sarah Palin is charging toward 2012 shooting blanks."

Speaking of blanks, did Dreher really read the whole book? On his Beliefnet blog yesterday, Dreher blogged at 12:35 pm that he was 100 pages in. All Things Considered starts airing locally at 4 pm. Did he really finish the book and write a script before the taping?

CBS’s eagerness to embrace Hillary Clinton has outpaced their embrace of facts. In the 8:30 half hour of The Early Show on Tuesday, co-host Harry Smith announced: "Also coming up this morning, you’re going to see Secretary of State Hillary Clinton like you have never seen her before, right? She’s in next month’s Vogue Magazine."

Two minutes later, co-host Maggie Rodriguez returned to the Vogue pictures: "When Hillary Clinton was running for president, her image was tightly controlled, but now that she’s secretary of state, she has started to reveal a whole new side that we’ve never seen before."

In reality, a Vogue photo shoot isn't new: Hillary Clinton was featured on the cover of Vogue in December 1998, smack-dab in the middle of impeachment proceedings. She was also on the cover in December 1993.

Vogue has been an obsequious promotional outlet for Hillary, and CBS spotlighted that again in its story:

On Friday's Ed Schultz radio show, NBC chief legal correspondent Dan Abrams came on to discuss the Manhattan trials of 9/11 architect Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and four other accused terrorists. He was not optimistic that it would help Obama politically at all:

I think that on sort of the international front, that once the proceedings start, I think it's just going to provide nugget after nugget for these people who want to use propaganda....I don't know that Obama had much of a choice here but to move forward with this. But from a propaganda point of view, and from a political point of view, I think it may be a lose and a lose.

When Schultz asked what the chances were of these terror suspects getting acquitted, Abrams guessed that the chances for KSM were "not very high," but it could happen with the other suspects, which would create political problems. As far as KSM, Abrams said, "I think he's gonna make a mockery of the proceeding...What if Khalid Sheik Mohammed says he wants to represent himself, and as a result, he wants to create a mockery of the proceeding. I see that as a real possibility here."

Schultz asked: "Politically, is this risky territory for Obama?"

As several networks run around with new ratify-our-liberal-bias polls insisting that Sarah Palin is completely unqualified to be president -- exquisitely timed to ruin her book tour and channel all their very obvious and partisan Palin-loathing -- where are the polls that are about 2009, as opposed to 2012?

A scan of Gallup.com and Pollingreport.com suggests that neither Gallup nor any of the networks are asking about the Fort Hood shooting -- either about whether it was terrorism or about whether it shakes people's confidence in the government's ability to protect American citizens from domestic terrorism attacks. Rasmussen had a poll that found 60 percent think Major Nidal Hasan should be tried for terrorism (and liberal blogger Greg Sargent also pulled out of that poll that a majority worried about a backlash against Muslims.)

On the KSM trial decision, there is one poll by CNN and the Opinion Research Corporation, but there is no question about the judgment of President Obama or Attorney General Holder. As Polling Report listed the questions:

In an unorthodox move, The Washington Post on Tuesday published two book reviews of Sarah Palin's Going Rogue -- one by liberal Ana Marie Cox of Air America radio, and one by conservative Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard. Continetti's is genuinely supportive. Cox's is genuinely snarky. (Obviously, it would have been nice if Hillary Clinton had received that treatment, but let's not overlook the balance here.)

There's also a snarky article by Post writer Jason Horowitz and Michael Shear headlined "The Book of Sarah embraces God & Todd."

Inside the Style section, the headline of the Cox review is "Rogue: Mostly flash, little substance. Surprised?" Isn't "mostly flash, little substance" a beautiful summation of the career of Ana Marie Cox? It's like Katie Couric suggesting Palin isn't deep.

Cox slams Rush Limbaugh in her review for calling the book substantive, even as she later confessed she only read part of the book:

New York Times media reporter Brian Stelter looked on Tuesday at MSNBC hosts pushing Team Obama from the left. Stelter stuck to supportive sources who believe they apparently have ideological integrity and independence where Fox News has none. They claim to have little contact with the Obama White House, but the staff there love how they’re supposedly "progressive but not partisan." Stelter explained:

It is certainly reaching the White House. Anita Dunn, the departing White House communications director, calls Mr. Olbermann and Ms. Maddow "progressive but not partisan," and in doing so, distinguishes them from Fox News, which she considers a political opponent.

The MSNBC hosts, she said in an e-mail message last month, "often take issues with the administration’s positions or tactics and are never shy about letting their viewers know when they disagree."

Chris Ariens at TV Newser reports that CNN reporter Emily Chang was detained for two hours today in Shanghai for holding up a T-shirt depicting Barack Obama wearing a Red Army uniform. "Chang bought the T-shirt at a basement souvenir shop in Beijing and brought it with her to Shanghai as she covers President Obama's visit to the city."

The front of the t-shirt says "Serve the People" in Chinese. On the back, it reads "Oba Mao" in English. The shirts have been seen in Chinese shops for months, but were "banned" ahead of Obama's trip.

When Chang held up the shirt up for a live shot outside a Shanghai metro stop, she was approached by two security guards. She recounted the scene in her In The Field blog:

Bad move? Maybe. But it ended up being great television.

Newsweek has done it again: a few weeks after acknowledging half its letters were critical of Joe Biden (but publishing none of them), they proclaimed their Al Gore cover was unpopular. Forty-six percent of their letter writers wrote on the subject of Gore, and 74 percent of them were critical. Still, Newsweek ran only positive letters. The first, most prominent one (in larger red type) read: "Until each nation makes responsibility for this earth a priority, we will continue to devastate it – and ourselves."

The next letter praises Gore's courage and conscience, but still presses him from the left to crush the problem of human overpopulation:

As a six-continent bicycle traveler for the past 35 years, I admire Al Gore addressing climate change. However, he fails to highlight the basic factor accelerating it: human overpopulation. Either we address it, or Mother Nature will do it for us. – Frosty Wooldridge, Golden, Colo.

Then the reading gets really hair-curling. Lee Bidgood Jr of Gainesville, Florida compared global-warming deniers to people who denied the Holocaust:

Ken Shepherd and Colleen Raezler both noted the liberal-media loathing for a conservative Bible project last month. In noting conservative Rod Dreher's beard-plucking loathing for the "American Patriot's Bible" on The Corner, Mike Potemra suggested that if the patriot Bible would offend liberals, one can only imagine the pain a conservative would find at this Christmas gift, made available on October 27: The Lincoln/Obama Inaugural Bible Collection.

Somehow, I doubt liberal reporters like Amy Sullivan at Time will have a discouraging word about this project.

For 100 dollars (alright, $63 with generous Amazon discounting), the publisher Andrews McMeel gives a Bible-toting Christian everything one would want to revere Obama's swearing-in:

The Obama administration's loosening up prosecutions for so-called "medical marijuana" is somehow not being defined by reporters as "socially liberal" (pushed by people Bill O'Reilly calls "secular progressives.") Dan Cook reports on what is currently the Most Popular story on Reuters:

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - The United States' first marijuana cafe opened on Friday, posing an early test of the Obama administration's move to relax policing of medical use of the drug.

The Cannabis Cafe in Portland, Oregon, is the first to give certified medical marijuana users a place to get hold of the drug and smoke it -- as long as they are out of public view -- despite a federal ban.

"This club represents personal freedom, finally, for our members," said Madeline Martinez, Oregon's executive director of NORML, a group pushing for marijuana legalization.

Yesterday marked the 40th anniversary of a unique political speech. On November 13, 1969, Vice President Spiro Agnew questioned the network news divisions' domination of the political debate, and the "narrow and distorted picture of America [that] often emerges from the television news."

Despite the very different times we lieve in today compared to the Old Media days of the late 1960s -- a time when the Big Three were a very dominant force in determining what Americans saw and discussed -- much of what Agnew said then remains a compelling critique of TV news today:

Setting the Agenda: "We cannot measure this power and influence by traditional democratic standards. They can make or break -- by their coverage and commentary -- a moratorium on the war. They can elevate men from local obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others. For millions of Americans, the network reporter who covers a continuing issue, like ABM or civil rights, becomes in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury."

Preparing for the year’s end, Newsweek’s web site is now carrying a video of "The Decade In Seven Minutes." Unsurprisingly, the historical memory is sharply partisan and liberal. It’s a very self-serving first draft. On how many events is Newsweek biased? Let us count the ways. (MRC's Mike Sargent did the transcript.)

1. Elian Gonzalez (no gun in Elian’s face photo, no mention of mother dying to get the boy to America).

NARRATOR: Federal agents seize six-year-old Elian Gonzalez in Miami. He’s sent back to Cuba.

JANET RENO: Elian is safe.

2. The 2000 Recount and 2001 Tax Cut.

NARRATOR: Florida becomes the center of the universe. Recounts, butterfly ballots, hanging chads, and Katherine Harris enter the lexicon. Thirty-six long days later the US Supreme Court halts the recount. W wins the Presidency, Gore later wins an Oscar. Bush is sworn in as number 43.

BUSH: God bless America.

Amanda Ernst at the Mediabistro blog Fishbowl NY covered Time's little panel discussion on who they should choose as "Person of the Year." Listen to the judgment of ABC's Barbara Walters:

Walters suggested Nancy Pelosi, Steve Jobs, Michelle Obama, Warren Buffett, Google, the Taliban, and Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. But Walters also made a case of Madoff, “You put Bernie Madoff on [[the cover]...and you're going to have more discussion and more stuff and more people buzzing."

TV Newser added that during the discussion, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani discussed the influence of Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck this past year. To that Gayle King said, "I'm getting ill." Fishbowl NYsummed up:

Here we go again: a liberal journalist feeling Barack Obama's pain, that he would be instantly judged by the media. Wait, the Obama-mythologizing, pinch-me-history-is-happening media? Yes. Time's David Von Drehle wrote an article titled "Obama's Fort Hood Speech: Lost in Translation." Von Drehle compared it to...the Gettysburg Address:

Lincoln was lucky. His speech at Gettysburg wasn't televised, and so he wasn't subjected to hours of commentary in advance of his address, setting expectations, or hours after his speech, analyzing his every word.

No one tried to tease out the difference between his "Commander in Chief moment" and his "pastor-in-chief role," as various TV pundits undertook to do while waiting for President Barack Obama to speak at a memorial service Tuesday for the men and women killed last week in the massacre at Fort Hood. Televised speeches now come larded in so much analysis, before and after, that it becomes almost impossible to connect with them in a genuine, visceral way.

Time magazine is beating its collective breast: we are not the makers of glorious Obama history! We are the blabby pundits that prevent a "genuine, visceral" connection with Obama's eloquence!

The Radio Equalizer blog is hot on the trail of left-wing talk radio bringing out the weirdest scenarios to shift the blame for the Fort Hood shooting onto the Islamophobic prejudice of the American people. Montel Williams is really starting to fit into the ludicrous Air America radio family: he suggested on Monday that the Fort Hood backlash against Muslims could be so great we would put Muslims in internment camps like the Japanese under Franklin Roosevelt:

WILLIAMS: We pulled something like this back in World War II when we decided to round up all Japanese Americans and put them in internment camps. This is something that I think before we can blink, the [anti-Muslim] rhetoric, Doc, could get out of hand. What do you think?

On Monday night’s All Things Considered newscast on National Public Radio, reporter Joseph Shapiro recounted the sympathetic story of Regina Holliday, who lost her 39-year-old husband Fred to kidney cancer. Holliday painted a mural in Washington demanding "We Need Health Reform Now." (It’s headlined "A Widow Paints a Health Care Protest" and it's the most popular story on Wednesday at NPR.org.)

But Shapiro’s story actually skimmed over just how passionately ideological Holliday’s mural is. She's amazed anyone could possibly be against health reform. On her blog she explained that she painted her opponents as a little girl in a red, white, and blue outfit:  "I wondered 'How can you be against this?' Then I realized they were acting like people who have been abused. She is a pretty little girl with welts on her legs..." [Italics hers.]

On air, NPR stuck to the heart-tugging narrative. The politics emerged late in the story:

Liberal talk-radio hosts are finding other reasons why Major Nidal Hasan would shoot up Fort Hood, other reasons than glorifying Allah. On Tuesday, Stephanie Miller suggested it could be because "George Bush made many people around the world feel like this was a war against Islam by using words like crusade."

Does this accurately reflect the words Bush routinely offered on Islam?

In the first week after September 11, Bush made an off-hand remark that "this crusade, this war against terrorism, is going to take a while." When Europe "cringed" in revulsion, Bush tried to avoid the word going forward. It was much more common for Bush to call Islam a "religion of peace."

Also high on the list, naturally following from Bush's alleged Islamophobia, is the bullying of Hasan and other Muslim soldiers: "the fact that he apparently was taunted for being Muslim because of the attitudes that developed here." Even if this was true and not just hearsay, it doesn't excuse mass murder.