A friend just took early retirement, a life long newsman: paperboy, HS editor of the Red & Blue, sports editor of the Sagebrush in college, wrote for the Carson City Appeal and Reno GJ.

When asked why he left after 50 years in the business he said, “I don’t recognize the profession anymore.” He once loved it, it was his life and he was proud of it.

My problem with media bias comes out of a deep respect for the profession of Journalism. It is an honor to be in such a important and privledged position. I’ve known a good many working reporters and editors over the last 40 years, and by and large they were conscientious, honest, over worked, and under paid.

I started out as a paperboy in the 5th grade, delivering the Ledger-Star. In college I chaired the Communications Board, which had oversight responsibility for the campus daily. I’ve supported freedom of the press, and freedom from the press. In my mind they’re both sides of the same coin.

When I see the magnitude of today’s overt support for the liberal agenda, and the corresponding prejudice against Republican, Conservative, and traditional values so blatently defended by members of the working press, it makes me fear for the future of the profession.

Not only is such mendacity toxic, it demands exposure, and correction. It’s either that or the profession has outlived its usefulness.

Bradley – If the stories are about candidates, shouldn’t the expectation be that the starting point is neutrality?

One would think so, but in practice that depend on whether the news about the candidates is favorable during the time measured.

For example, I would not be surprised if the proportion of negative stories about Obama went up when Jeremiah Wright’s horrible beliefs, and Obama’s silence about them, came to full view. In fact, if that didn’t happen, it could arguably be the result of bias. We learned a lot of very unsavory things about Obama’s heroes then, and the stories should reflect that.

Similarly, the positive image of Ron Paul took a nosedive when his office was discovered to have put out racist material. Paul said he didn’t write them himself, but the stuff went out under his name. I grew very disillusioned with Paul at that point.

Interestingly enough, Paul makes a positive impression in the movie IOUSA, which I saw last night. Paul was the only one of the candidates in either party that really got it about our mountain of debt. If you haven’t seen the movie, by all means do so. Prepare to be scared out of your wits — IOUSA is a real-life horror movie.

All will be well once you accept The Lightbearer!

Yes, of course. If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing right. You won’t get any opposition on that point.

But, we don’t need to count the trees to know there’s a lot of them in the forest. Nor do we need to pretend media bias is either subtle or anything but perverse and pervasive.

That said, I’m rolling my eyes at Obama’s equating the Iraq war with the Soviet invasion of Georgia.

I’m sure the Russians loved to hear that!

“Allegations of media bias are only meaningful when …” they’re true. In this case the bias is not only true, it’s as obvious as the nose on your face.

Come on man, you’re a professional, and you don’t need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.

That said, rigorously proving a media bias toward Obama requires a higher standard of evidence. My litmus test is whether I personally would feel comfortable citing the study as evidence. I would not feel comfortable doing so with the MRC study, and that’s aside from the MRC’s own conservative viewpoint. The study design itself is defective.

I can only shake my head and sigh about the MRC’s missed opportunity to do really persuasive media research.