**Update**

Interestingly, Dan Morain of the L.A. Times had discovered back in April that Barack Obama has a pretty thin resume prior to being elevated to the presidency. Between 1993 and '96, Obama, the much-ballyhooed "Constitutional scholar," had only an unusually low 3,723 billable hours of legal work accrued over a four-year stint with his law firm employer Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. Further, he seems to have worked on but few cases and made little impact commensurate with his reputation. Yet, just this month the Orlando Sentinel decides to re-print the Morain piece. The question I have, of course, is why is the Orlando Sentinel only NOW interested that Obama was "involved in relatively few cases before entering politics"? Where was this investigating before the election?

The Morain piece begins by recounting how Obama has so often made a big deal out of his days as a "civil-rights attorney" claiming it a key ingredient of his early, formative community development years. Yet, Morain finds that there isn't much record proving that Obama did a whole heck-of-a-lot back in those days. (bold mine)

Let's see if I got this straight: Hundreds of supporters of gay marriage, opponents of California Proposition 8, have picketed a Mexican restaurant in L.A. and shouted vulgarities at innocent customers just because one employee - a daughter of the owner - gave a modest $100 donation in support of the measure protecting traditional marriage. Opponents of Proposition 8 have threatened and harassed several other businesses - including a radio station, a theatre, and a chain of health food stores - because employees gave money in support of Prop 8. Opponents of Prop 8 have knocked a cross from the hands of an elderly woman and stomped on it during a demonstration in Palm Springs. Suspicious white powder has been sent in an envelope to a Mormon temple in Westwood. (Mormons were big supporters of Prop 8.)

And the supporters of Proposition 8? Well, their measure - which sought to restore the definition of marriage between only a man and a woman - won in a statewide referendum by a 52 to 48 margin. They simply want judges to respect the vote and uphold its result.

So what does the Los Angeles Times' Tim Rutten have to say about all of this? He says in his November 15 column that "both sides" "are going too far" and "need to cool down."

"Both sides" "need to cool down"? "Both sides"?

[HT: Patterico.] Check out the headline from the November 14, 2008, column by Los Angeles Times "media critic" James Rainey:

Right-wing radio sounds false alarm on 'Fairness Doctrine': Impose a mandate on broadcasters to balance their political views? That would be onerous indeed. But memo to Rush: Nobody's asking for that.

"Nobody's asking for that"? Not quite. As Patterico and Hot Air's Ed Morrissey have pointed out with video testimony, Sen. Chuck Schumer, for one, is quite hip to the idea.

The litmus test results are in: If you're against the legalization of same-sex marriage and are discovered, you can't be involved in the performing arts in California, even though the majority of potential patrons in your state agree with you.

Under the pressure of a threatened boycott, the artistic director of a Sacramento theater has stepped down after it was learned that he contributed to Yes side ("yes, same-sex marriage should be prohibited") of the supposedly Golden State's Proposition 8 campaign.

Here's the opening of the Sacramento Business Journal's story (links were in original):

Scott Eckern, artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, is resigning his post and leaving the organization.

A boycott of the theater was called Tuesday by some in the national arts community when news broke that Eckern contributed $1,000 to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, which supported the ban on gay marriage.

John Edwards. Remember him? He was the guy whom the Los Angeles Times for an excruciatingly painful period of time found it impossible to write about in the midst of his breaking scandal last summer. In fact, Times bloggers were forbidden to write about the scandal by Times editor Tony Pierce who came up with this excuse for the moratorium:

Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

Another excuse not to cover the Edwards scandal was given by Top of the Ticket blog author, Don Frederick:

For the most part, mainstream media outlets have not pursued the matter, in part because Edwards no longer is a presidential candidate nor does he hold a public office. The Times National Editor Scott Kraft explained the newspaper's stance in a note today, published on the Reader's Representative blog.

In what can only be described as delusional, Los Angeles Times writer James Rainey attempted to castigate the right wing media as a bitter and resentful group of shameless journalists - attributes that can only describe the liberal media's behavior for at least eight years now.

The title itself, ‘Right-wing media feeds its post-election anger,' demonstrates that Rainey will not be pulling any punches with his article.  But why is he focusing on the reaction of conservative talk show hosts less than one week after Obama's election?  Did he forget the liberal media's - nay, the mainstream media's - chronic case of misplaced anger since election night of 2000?

The answer, of course, is no.  Rainey's employer, the LA Times, has been one of the biggest offenders of liberal media ignorance in quite some time.  After all, The Times has produced rants that read like a rap sheet of bias. 

An examination of the piece follows...

In response to Chris Matthews' claim that his job is to make the Barack Obama presidency a success, the Los Angeles Times Washington bureau chief Doyle McManus suggested the MSNBC host needs to see a neurologist.

Although I agree that Matthews clearly has a fixation that needs attention, I'm not sure it's physiological rather than purely psychological.

Regardless of the cause, the symptom was the source of discussion on Sunday's "Reliable Sources":

The foes of Proposition 8 in California which would restore the definition of marriage in that state as being between one man and one woman have produced an incredibly bizarre and bigoted commercial. The video depicts a pair of Mormon missionaries invading the home of a lesbian couple and ransacking it until they find their wedding license and then tearing it up. This video displays obvious hatred towards Mormons who mostly support Prop. 8 but to Los Angeles Times blogger Karin Klein such bigotry is no big deal (emphasis mine):

The Los Angeles Times is feeling the pressure over its decision to refuse to release the controversial Rashid Khalidi video in which Barack Obama is shown toasting the former PLO operative at an Israel-bashing dinner. Even though the Times has acknowledged it has received thousands of phone calls and e-mails calling for the release of the video it is holding of that dinner, it has acted like a player hogging the football, waiting for the time to run out in the game as the final seconds count down. Although they have yet to report on a protest about their refusal to release the Khalidi  tape held right outside their own building as you can see in this video, the Times included their reasons for refusing to make it public in a story about the demands by John McCain and Sarah Palin to release it (emphasis mine):

 

This is pretty funny. A $175,000 reward/bribe is now being offered for a Los Angeles Times reporter to actually report the news, namely to release the Khalidi video that the Times refuses to let the public see. It started out with a mere $25,000 offer made by Ace of Spades (emphasis  mine):

Well, I don't know if one will step forward. I can guarantee, though, that if the goods are delivered the blogosphere can contribute $20,000. In a matter of hours.

Maybe more. More would depend on the tape.

This offer includes is particularly directed towards Los Angeles Times employees. Maybe ones that just got fired. Or will get fired in the next couple of weeks.

Guaranteed.

Anonymous.

That's how we roll.

Pretty pathetic that we have to try to bribe "newsmen" to release newsworthy tapes.

If your conscience is troubled, They should have released it anyway.

Plus that $25,000. You know what helps an aching conscience? Rubbing it with crisp hundred dollar bills, that's what.

Yeah it just went up five g's. If I can get $5 grand in a donation drive, I'm pretty damn sure I can get $25,000 for the tape.

And no, not a stunt. One little blog gets $5 k in a donation drive. Something like this, with every blogger linking the donation button, would easily get in excess of $25,000.

Blogger Patrick "Patterico" Frey yesterday devoted a blog post to the difference between how the media are reporting a thwarted assassination attempt against President Bush versus the recent arrest of some skinheads plotting harm to Sen. Barack Obama.

Patterico noted that the Bush conspirators were farther along in their plans than the skinheads targeting Obama, and yet there was no discernible mainstream media attention to the plot, wherein the principal conspirator pleaded guilty and was slapped with a 5-year sentence:

Guest blogger DRJ earlier posted about the alleged assassination plot against Barack Obama. As I always say when charges are made, charges are just charges, and have to be proved by the prosecution. But if these charges can be proved, then these men should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

But it got me thinking: this story is being reported everywhere, including in my beloved Los Angeles Times. I suspect it will be on front pages everywhere tomorrow morning.

But remember when I posted in July of this year about an attempted plot against President Bush?

If the Los Angeles Times had a video of John McCain toasting a supporter of the old South African apartheid government, does anyone think they wouldn't release it without hesitation? However, because the Times has a video of Barack Obama toasting former PLO operative, Rashid Khalidi, at an Israel-bashing party that also included terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, they are now coming up with all sorts of absurd legalistic reasons as to why they can't release the video.

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has posted the messages between a reader and the a Los Angeles Times representative about the release of this video:

A man who was a special education aide for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) "already accused of videotaping himself molesting teenage girls in his private basketball program," was charged October 17 with "having sexual contact with four more, including one who says he took her to a local hotel room for a weekend of sex" (LA Daily News). "In all, seven girls, most about 15, [have] told police [the man] had talked dirty, fondled or performed sexual acts on them ... [T]he former Birmingham High assistant football coach faces 14 felony and three misdemeanor charges, and more than 30 years in prison if he's convicted, said Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Alisanne Scolnik."

Yet one place you won't read about this story is in the Los Angeles Times. Do you think if this man were a Catholic priest, the Times would fail to report these new awful allegations against this guy? Of course not.

The mainstream media are willfully ignoring many questionable ties and friendships of Barack Obama.  The list does not end with the radical racist preacher Jeremiah Wright and unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers.  They have totally ignored Obama campaigning for the socialist revolutionary Raila Odinga in Kenya.  They have also ignored his ties with radical Islamic extremist Khalid Al Masour.

LA Times takes things to the next level.  They are going beyond the level of ignoring to the level of willfully witholding informative evidence from the public.  The associate of Barack Obama in question this time is Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO operative and best friend of William Ayers. The LA times has a video of Barack Obama toasting this friend of his while attending a Jew bashing dinner, and they are refusing to release the video to the public.

Who wrote the following?:

"Societies in which the few are allowed to fatten themselves without limit on the labor of many are not just."

A. Friedrich Engels
B. William Ayers
C. Michelle Obama
D. Timothy Rutten

Any of the answers would make sense, but the headline kind of gave it away. It was Timothy Rutten of the LA Times who penned that immortal line in his column of today.  In doing so, Rutten echoes other in the MSM, as here and here, who in the wake of the financial markets' travails indulge in a certain anti-capitalist chic.

Let's have some fun deconstructing the intrepid class warrior's musings . . .

Los Angeles Times reporter Janet Hook informed readers of the October 24 paper that while "McCain seeks to portray Obama as an extreme liberal," that some liberals are worrying Obama is too centrist for their tastes.

One such liberal was Amy Isaacs of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a liberal advocacy group. Isaacs downplayed Obama's liberalism while affirming it, saying he was not a "flaming liberal" but would basically "do what every liberal does: keep the needs of ordinary working Americans foremost on his agenda."

But a review of ADA's own congressional ratings for Obama shows his voting record is overwhelmingly in line with the organization.:

If John McCain had gone back on his promise to accept public campaign money, and instead set fundraising records that put him as many as fourteen points ahead in the polls with less than two weeks to go before Election Day, do you think there'd be a lot of media carping and whining about rich Republicans buying the White House?

Probably 24 hours a day, seven days a week until the final vote had been counted, correct?

Yet, despite Barack Obama having gone back on his campaign promise to accept public funds, and reports that he's now over $600 million in contributions, the Obama-loving press don't seem very concerned with liberals buying the presidency.

This obvious hypocrisy struck the Los Angeles Times' Andrew Malcolm Thursday (emphasis added):