Note: I'm the author of a new book, Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, but I'm not part of the Obama campaign.

Rasmussen Reports released a survey this morning finding that 49% of respondents believe that reporters will try to help Obama win.

That number is up from 44% a month ago. Only 14% believe that most reporters will try to help McCain win.

Perhaps most astonishingly, "45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win" while only 30% disagree. Republicans and independents are most likely to think this.

This poll reveals the power of the right-wing media in this country, and the myth of liberal bias that is repeated over and over again.

Since announcing his retirement as executive editor at The Washington Post yesterday, Leonard Downie, Jr. has received plaudits from colleagues and peers and TV pundits.  He is coming off a six-Pulitzer season -- including the Walter Reed probe-- and, before that, Dana Priest's "black sites" revelations and more.  And I often remind my friends, he had no control over the paper's editorial page.

That said, I also have to mention the greatest stain on his record: The Post's tragically poor performance in the run-up to the Iraq war, and Downie's failure (as far as I've seen) to fully admit that. His paper, given its influence, stands out as a "complicit enabler," in Scott McClellan's phrase.

On the front page of http://www.washingtonpost.com it says "...Barack Obama's criticism of "bitter" small-town Americans". Well, Obama did NOT criticise small-town Americans - he noted their bitterness and said he felt sympathy for them and wanted to help. Why does Kurtz screw this up? A mistake or a lie? I don't know. But tell him to correct the mistake ASAP:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...

Al Franken once said that the easiest job in the world was being a fact-checker for Rush Limbaugh, and today we learn that the second easiest job is being a media critic for the Washington Post.  Here's Howard Kurtz on:

Why the Press Turned on Obama

And for an explanation, Kurtz goes to another media critic:

There was so much talk about him getting such an easy ride that some journalists got tired of it.

You may be asking yourself when those journalists are going to get tired of all the talk about the easy ride they're giving McCain.  Apparently not until "Saturday Night Live" does a skit.  

...journalists were stung by a pair of "Saturday Night Live" skits that portrayed them as in the tank for Obama.

And if that challenge to their journalistic integrity wasn't enough, Obama wanting to eat his breakfast without interruption helped create:

... the growing media perception of Obama as aloof.

So there you have it.  A comedy show and a waffle was all it took to energize the media into bringing Obama "back to earth."   If only "Saturday Night Live" would do a skit about the media's lack of coverage of John McCain...heck, the actors wouldn't even have to act.  

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz embodies the worst of the worst of his profession so far as I'm concerned. I don't regularly read him, I briefly tried to watch his CNN Reliable Sources show but couldn't take it for long, but I've seen lots of him by accumulation over the years.

But I happened to notice that he was doing one of the Post's "Live Discussion" segments today, just a little before it began, so I went and submitted a question.

Imagine my surprisae when the first question of the day turned out to be from here in Portland, Oregon! It just wasn't my question. Kurtz was asked why the pundits asked to weigh in on the Rev. Wright/Obama "controversy" have been overwhelmingly white. Kurtz brought up the fact that he had two African-Americans on his panel Sunday. Although he also had Michael Medved, and that may have been like having a whole fist on the scales.

[Click here for larger image]

Howard Kurtz is the ultimate Regurgilist - Glenn Greenwald has the story.

Please note that there is no "breaking" in the title.  Today the media critic, who somehow never manages to criticize the media, misses the point again.

Last week, when the Times quoted unnamed former associates of John McCain as saying they believed, in 1999, that he had an extramarital relationship with Washington lobbyist Vicki Iseman, a huge controversy erupted. This time, though, it was the Times that was harshly criticized.

To be sure, the piece included significant details about whether the Arizona senator had done legislative favors for Iseman's clients. And unlike the tabloid Star, which paid Flowers a six-figure sum, the Times has won dozens of Pulitzers for aggressive journalism. But with McCain and Iseman both denying an inappropriate relationship, a rough consensus is emerging among journalists that the Times story was fatally flawed.

Fatally flawed because both McCain and Iseman deny ever doing the horizontal tango?  Newsflash, Mr. Kurtz; that's not the point.  Whether McCain cheated on his second wife just as he did multiple times on his first wife is not the issue.  So instead of rehashing past sexual scandals, you might try spending a little time reporting on the media coverage of those legislative favors.  That's the story.    

Hillary Clinton has become the shepherd child who cried "wolf!" too many times without a beast to be found, and now -- even when she tells the truth -- no one may be paying attention to her anymore.

It’s about picking a president who relies not just on words -– but on work, hard work, to get America back to work. Someone who’s not just in the speeches business -– but will get America back in the solutions business.

Follow me below the fold for more.

In a must-read article today, Howard Kurtz writes about what has been blatant media bias against Hillary Clinton's campaign

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

In the wake of his New Hampshire and South Carolina victories, the once-and-future GOP frontrunner John McCain is enjoying a charmed life when it comes to the press.  Just days after John King's puff piece on CNN, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz offered a glowing review of McCain's accessibility to the press.  But as he conveniently continues his retreat from his past positions on immigration and tax cuts as the Republican race heads to Florida, John McCain should be receiving more media scrutiny - not less.

We have a wonderful, rational, reasoned approach to evaluating our Presidential candidates in a diary by Teacherken this morning.  He dissects the strengths, and weaknesses of all 3 top tier aspirants.  But, in reading Ken's effort I was struck by something I heard last night that may make all of our hopes and analysis irrelevant.

I know Howard Kurtz is not a popular guy around these parts, and he is certainly not a favorite of mine!  But on BookTV, After Words last night, I heard him discussing his latest efforts to examine the media, and promote his most recent book.  Kurtz was interviewed by James Warren, Managing Editor of the Chicago Tribune.

Note: I'm the author of a new book, Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, but I'm not part of the Obama campaign.

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz today devotes a column to repeating the whining from the Clinton campaign about the end of the glowing press coverage of her coronation. The column, "For Clinton, A Matter of Fair Media," is a typical example of what’s wrong with so-called "objective" journalism. The Clinton campaign wants journalists to run the same number of negative stories about Obama and Clinton, even if Clinton’s campaign is making more mistakes. And the Clinton folks hope to game the system by sending a message out to reporters that they won’t tolerate criticism.

To save you all some time, the answer is, media hack.  Today Howard takes on Rudy "Sex On The City" Giuliani paying for sex with Judi Nathan with the taxpayer's money.  And how does he approach this well-documented, multifaceted scandal?

Rudy Giuliani, who made his name prosecuting bad guys, has always taken a two-fisted approach toward what he brands "the liberal media."

That pugilistic style was on display last week when the Politico got under Hizzoner's skin.

Don't let the quotation marks around, "the liberal media," fool you.  This column is an ode to the manly manliness that is Rudy Giuliani.  

Kurtz begins by telling us what time the Politico story was posted, because after all, Giuliani did say it was timed as a pre-debate hit piece.  He then says that, "

...the newspaper said the former New York City mayor had billed tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses to obscure city agencies for repeated visits to the Hamptons...

Actually, Howie, the newspaper didn't just say he did it, they offered irrefutable, documented proof that security expenses were billed to obscure (obscure being aid to the disabled and the poor) city agencies.  But sure, let's pretend it was just a claim. And let's not bother to address the other aspects of this story that have come out in the past few days:  that Mistress Nathan was being ferried around by New York's finest even when she wasn't with Giuliani, that the police were a taxi service for her and her family,  that Giuliani refused to address this issue when it was first raised in 2002, and that no documentation has been produced to show that those city agencies were ever reimbursed.  

What we get is a denial from Giuliani, a rebuttal from Politco's Editor in Chief, an explanation from an unnamed Giuliani spokesman, and then from a named Giuliani spokesman.  Three to one, with nothing from Kurtz addressing the validity of the claims made, thus concluding the fair and balanced coverage from Mr. Media Critic.  Because it's time to move on to examples of Giuliani calling the media, "liberal," ending with:

Giuliani honed his political skills during eight years of constant combat with the tabloid-driven New York press. As a White House contender, he is finding the media an equally juicy target, a stance that may well have resonance among Republican primary voters.

If this column is any kind of precursor, it looks like the media is coming into this combat unarmed.

Howard Kurtz - Navel Gazing Media Apologist

I have been saving this Howie pic for the perfect occasion.

Howard Kurtz channels Bill O’Reilly: Accuses MSNBC of "moving Left"
From Crooks and Liars by John Amato on November 12th, 2007

CNN’s Howard Kurtz accused MSNBC of going "left" because they dared to offer Rosie O’Donnell a job. He picks up on a theme that Bill O’Reilly promotes daily because he’s upset at Keith Olbermann for calling him out on his inaccuracies and refuses to name him. This is nothing new for Howard. He hasn’t found a right wing talking point that he doesn’t embrace. Here’s Howie: READ ON

Well here we are about ten days after the debate where Clinton crashed and burned according to her opponents. We've seen a rash of polls, the latest AP/Ipsos, and guess what. Nothing happened, if anything she has slightly improved her position. Howie Kurtz in the WAPO makes the proposition that the msm having oversold the perfection of her campaign again oversold the impact of the debate. Klein, not exactly one of her fans, also makes the point that every person he spoke to in Iowa, including many political junkies, had not seen the debate. Any impression they had of it was gleaned from media coverage. This raises an interesting point. Are the public growing increasingly resistant to the media's storyline. Are they getting fed up with being "taught" that Clinton is (pick a pejorative).    

The Washington Post published my letter to the editor this morning: "Coverage Without Content," in response to Howard Kurtz's article on recent findings of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, "First the Good News, Hillary."

Howard Kurtz's Oct. 29 Style article, "First the Good News, Hillary," about a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, confirmed what many already know: Polls drive campaign coverage and vice versa. I appreciate project director Tom Rosenstiel's view that the findings indicate that the media's "horse-race lens" has little to do with the candidates' merits.

Clive James once decribed a particular best-selling bodice-ripper as like "a long conversation between two not very bright drunks".  Howard Kurtz's blog, in which he promotes his promotional tour for his book Reality Show: Inside the Last Great Television News War (don't worry, he doesn't mean Iraq), is like a short conversation between an especially dumb goldfish and a piece of fake seaweed.  

I would much, much rather read Redstate.  I would rather stare at a pile of sand.

At the Harper's Magazine website, Scott Horton described Kurtz as "one of the dumbest figures in print or on the airwaves".  After reading Kurtz's blog, I'm inclined to add "or in an oxygon-rich aptmosphere" to the list.

This must be seen to be believed.