A funny friend e-mailed me this joke about the ABC special tonight selling the new Barbara Walters boudoir-opening memoir: "Just a few hours now until the most eagerly awaited program of the May sweeps, 'Barbara Walters: Skanky In the Seventies.' I can't wait."

From Us Magazine through TV Newser: Star Jones lets her old "View" boss Barbara Walters have it on how she's using her tale of adultery with black Republican Sen. Edward Brooke in the Seventies to sell books: "It is a sad day when an icon like Barbara Walters in the sunset of her life is reduced to publicly branding herself as an adulterer, humiliating an innocent family with accounts of her illicit affair and speaking negatively against me all for the sake of selling a book. It speaks to her true character."

Aside from the never-ending controversy over how Star Jones dramatically lost weight, it's amazing to see how everyone from Oprah to Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post today see Barbara's tale of being a mistress as a fascinating life story, and not a tale of sleazy immorality. It also raises the obvious point of how Barbara's bed-hopping affected her coverage of the Clintons and the famous Monica Lewinsky interview in 1999. It might have helped viewers process that interview with some on-screen graphics that said "Barbara Walters has been a mistress just like her interviewee."

Shortly after reporting on her Web site that GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000, Arianna Huffington continued to denigrate the presumptive Republican nominee before a Washington, D.C., audience.

"Actually, you know what I think - the more I think of it, John McCain should not be allowed to hold sharp scissors," Huffington said. "[Y]ou know he wants to make the tax cuts permanent. He wants bigger corporate tax cuts. You know, it's an endless process. You know it's basically, exactly what this country does not need. It's expanding and deepening the last eight years."

Earlier, Huffington had charged that the media are playing "Pontius Pilate" when dealing with the issue of global warming.

Here's something you don't see every day: a liberal, female editor of a leading liberal online magazine stating with cameras rolling that most press members "Hate, hate Hillary Clinton."

Yet, that's exactly what occurred Sunday morning when Salon's editor-in-chief Joan Walsh spoke some truths about the media's love affair with Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama, as well as their disdain for the former first lady (video embedded right).

Also surprising was Walsh's view of liberal assertions that the Rev. John Hagee is as big an issue for Sen. John McCain's candidacy as Rev. Jeremiah Wright is for Obama's.

But, before we get there, here were Walsh's comments about media bias during this campaign:

Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz filed one of those hurray-I-got-access puff pieces on the networks today, in this case ABC morning news anchor Chris Cuomo, son of ultraliberal former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo (and brother of current New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo). Kurtz mentioned that Cuomo drew controversy for suggesting Britain’s Prince Harry was allowed to serve in the military in Afghanistan because he was "expendable" (a gaffe first highlighted by Scott Whitlock at NewsBusters), but at the article’s end, ABC tells Kurtz how much they like young Cuomo as an advocacy journalist:

Cuomo describes himself as an advocacy journalist, and his bosses like that. "He's had a real yearning to seek out the untold stories, particularly of the disadvantaged," Westin says. "He's almost a crusader. It's a form of old-fashioned, muckraking journalism."

As NewsBusters' Brent Baker reported last Friday, Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was "interviewed" last week by PBS's Bill Moyers, and the broadcast networks fell for the snowjob hook, line, and sinker.

Quite surprisingly, Howard Kurtz's panel on Sunday's "Reliable Sources" were far less impressed, in particular, former New York Times columnist William Safire who deliciously framed the interview as a "a loving conversation. And Bill Moyers is a liberal, was from the word go, and he was doing his best to make the most for Jeremiah Wright."

Wonderfully, Kurtz and his panel members, unlike seemingly all the rest of the currently fawning over Jeremiah media, agreed:

Last February, NewsBusters reported the resignation of retired Col. Ken Allard from NBC News as a result of the military analyst's view the network was undergoing a "precipitous retreat from journalistic and ethical standards."

On Sunday, Allard was more specific, claiming, "I thought they really had moved very slowly to the left, and I also thought that when they had the chance to clarify to the fact that they were not moving to the left, they didn't do so."

CNN's Howard Kurtz set this up on "Reliable Sources":

Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz takes up the left-wing brouhaha over ABC’s "trivial" questions to Barack Obama on Wednesday night. Here’s the weird part:

It is hardly unusual for debate moderators to draw partisan criticism, as NBC's Tim Russert did in October, when liberal commentators accused him of harassing Clinton over driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and other issues. But it is rare for ostensibly neutral media writers and television columnists to pile on with such fervor.

But Kurtz never quoted anyone "ostensibly neutral" -- they all came from the left. He began with Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post, Will Bunch of the "Attytood" blog, and Post TV critic Tom Shales. Later on he added Greg Mitchell, the socialist editor at Editor & Publisher, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, and Steve Benen of the Carpetbagger Report. He wrapped up with Keith Olbermann. Not an "ostensibly neutral" voice in the bunch.

Would it be fair to guess that inside the "ostensibly neutral" Washington Post there is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Kurtz did pass some of the internal reaction and defense from ABC:

CNBC "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer came under fire recently for telling viewers Bear Stearns (NYSE: BSC) wasn't in trouble just days before the investment bank tanked. He has finally admitted some fault.

"No! No! No! Bear Stearns is not in trouble," Cramer said on his program March 11. "If anything, they're more likely to be taken over. Don't move your money from Bear."

The following weekend, confidence in the investment bank disintegrated. On March 17 it was announced JP Morgan Chase (NYSE:JPM) would take over Bear Stearns at $2 a share after the Federal Reserve agreed to back the takeover.

Cramer appeared on CNN's March 23 "Reliable Sources" to maintain that he meant not to move your money from Bear Stearns the investment bank - not Bear Stearns' common stock - on his stock-picking show. However, Cramer told host Howard Kurtz he was wrong about the general health of Bear Stearns.

Appearing on the March 12 edition of "The Colbert Report," Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz discussed the media’s fawning coverage of Barack Obama, noting Chris Matthews famous "thrill going up my leg" comment when hearing Senator Obama. Kurtz comically stated "we don’t know how high that thrill went." Host Stephen Colbert replied "that thrill is what you call ‘the hardball.’ [see video here]

Kurtz noted the mainstream media’s excitement over Obama and felt they got a little bit tougher when "Saturday Night Live" parodied the pro-Obama bias. When Colbert noted the press probably loved to talk about the potential bias because they got to talk about themselves. Kurtz conceded "we are a very self absorbed profession."

Amy Menefee also wrote on the Kurtz interview noting that the big three networks are still relevant and opining that journalists put their "feelings aside."

The transcript is below.

Who's watching the watchers? Well, the Media Research Center, and Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz says he's "sort of like the internal affairs cop." But just how tough is he? You can be the judge reading his column.

"We try to hold them accountable, exactly what they do to politicians - why did you do that? Why did you make that mistake? Why did you jump the gun?" said Kurtz, who's also the host of CNN's "Reliable Sources," in a March 12 appearance on "The Colbert Report." Kurtz was on to plug his new book, "Reality Show," about television news.

Host Stephen Colbert baited him: "The three big anchors still really matter, and I agree. ...Who are they, again?"

The fallout continues from yesterday's New York Times hit piece on John McCain. The paper itself doesn't seem eager to put up a fight as network news broadcasts, liberal bloggers, journalism professors, and the general public are questioning the Times's journalistic standards.

Yesterday's inflammatory story, which used anonymous sources to forward nine-year-old allegations from his first presidential run suggesting an improper relationship by John McCain with a female telecommunications lobbyist, received prominent front-page placement; today's follow-up on McCain's press conference was relegated to page 20 -- Elisabeth Bumiller's "McCain Disputes That Aides Warned Him About Ties to Lobbyist."

I'm not sure what got into Howard Kurtz Sunday morning, but the Washington Post/CNN media analyst, and "Reliable Sources" host, really laid into the press for their horrible coverage of the presidential campaign.

Maybe more surprising, Kurtz voiced his displeasure with both print and television news coverage, as well as what was being written and said about the candidates on both sides of the aisle.

So go get some popcorn, and prepare yourself for a media bashing guaranteed to put a smile on your face:

On the front of Thursday’s Style section of The Washington Post, media reporter Howard Kurtz profiled Chris Matthews in a story headlined "Hardbrawl." It began by noting how frankly Matthews dislikes Team Bush:

Dispensing with the usual platitudes about his MSNBC show, Matthews vowed not to be silenced by Bush administration officials. And he let loose with this broadside: "They've finally been caught in their criminality."

The political community was soon abuzz: Did you hear what Chris said? What criminality was he talking about? Could he really be fair in moderating the following week's Republican presidential debate? "I did it on purpose," Matthews says now. "I wanted to make a statement that we had a purpose on the show -- to tell the truth."

In Tuesday’s Washington Post, reporter Howard Kurtz focused on how talk show hosts from Limbaugh to Laura (and ahem, Levin!), from Hannity to Hewitt, are opposing John McCain on air. One McCain adviser, a Democrat signed up by George W. Bush in the 2000 campaign, lectured Limbaugh on party loyalty:

Mark McKinnon, a top McCain adviser, called the criticism from Limbaugh and the other hosts "frustrating," saying: "Our question is, 'Isn't it better to get behind a Republican you may disagree with from time to time than work for an outcome that puts a Democrat in the White House with whom you will disagree all of the time?'

But in the latest edition of Newsweek, reporter Richard Wolffe reports that inside the McCain campaign, McKinnon was making pledges not to make any ads disparaging Barack Obama. And he’s lecturing Limbaugh? The article ends:

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann was Howard Kurtz's guest on CNN's "Reliable Sources" Sunday, and unfortunately, viewers were treated to a litany of hypocrisies from both media personalities, so much so that it seemed like a lengthy advertisement for the controversial "Countdown."

Although Kurtz did present his guest as being mostly liberal and decidedly anti-Bush, he never once mentioned "Countdown's" actual ratings, or how Olbermann is often in last place in his time slot behind "The O'Reilly Factor," "Nancy Grace," and whatever is being offered by CNN.

You would think that since Kurtz works for CNN, he might have mentioned this.

But that wasn't the only hypocrisy Sunday morning, for when Olbermann made clear just how biased he is, Kurtz seemed to be totally oblivious (video available here, liberal website warning):

As NewsBusters readers are infinitely aware, the use of the word "delicious" has been a source of some controversy at this website.

Either by e-mail, private message, or in comments sections, some have requested an immediate cessation of the appearance of this adjective in my articles.

There have even been some blog posts at other websites concerning this matter, including one Canadian liberal that strongly recommended I get a thesaurus.

On the other hand, many readers have commented that they like this descriptive, and see it as being one of my signatures. In fact, some have voiced satirical frustration at its absence.

With this in mind, I almost fell out of my chair this morning when Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources" said the following:

Discussing NBC News reporter Lee Cowan’s admission that “it's almost hard to remain objective” in covering Barack Obama, on Sunday’s Reliable Sources on CNN former CBS and PBS reporter Terence Smith agreed Obama is “absolutely” benefitting from “sympathetic” coverage and ex-Washington Post political editor John Harris revealed Post reporters “needed to go through detox” after coming back to the newsroom enthralled with the liberal Democratic presidential candidate. Recalling his days at the Post before helping to launch The Politico a year ago, Harris told ex-Post colleague and Reliable Sources host Howard Kurtz:

Almost a couple years ago, you would send a reporter out with Obama, and it was like they needed to go through detox when they came back: “Oh, he's so impressive, he's so charismatic,” and we're kind of like, “Down Boy.”

Harris, however, held his journalistic colleagues accountable: “What Lee Cowan said is it's hard. Okay, it's hard. Do it. Detach yourself. Nobody cares about our opinions.”

As NewsBusters reported Monday, one of the media members that seemed to fall hook, line, and sinker for Hillary Clinton's crying game in New Hampshire was Kate Snow who covers the junior senator's campaign for ABC News, and posted a sycophantic blog about the weepy candidate's emotional performance virtually moments after it happened.

Six days later, appearing on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Snow continued to shill for Hillary, and took the pimping a step further by parroting statements made recently by Bill Clinton about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

After host Howard Kurtz showed a clip of the now infamous teary scene in that New Hampshire diner, Snow was asked how she saw the event, and responded with a statement that sounded like it had been written by one of Hillary's staffers: