The revelations coming from Journalist, an invitation only email lists for liberal journalists and academics,not only prove that the main stream media was in the tank for Barack Obama, but also reveal how they actually plotted to slant the "news".

It's one thing to have political persuasions. It shouldn't, but does end up affecting one's writing. Journalists should ensure that their politics are removed from reporting the facts. Of course educators are supposedly dedicated to educating, providing the facts and guiding students to reach reasoned conclusions.

What ends up being horrific is the actual plot by journalists and academics to slant the news, cover up Rev. Jeremiah Wright's and Barack Obama's relationship and political beliefs.

The real problem with JournoList is that much of it consisted of exchanges among people who worked for institutions about how to best hijack their employers for the cause of Progressivism. Thus, the J-List discussion revealed yesterday in the Daily Caller was about how the group could get their media organizations to play down the Reverend Wright affair and help elect Barack Obama.

Were I an editor of one of these institutions, I would instantly fire any employee who participated in this gross violation of his/her duty. For example, the J-List included Washington Post reporters, and the idea that the paper has been turned into a propaganda organ is a big reason it is bleeding readers and influence.

Of course, it is possible that the Post's editors were on the list, since the membership is not known, in which case the corporate executives should fire the editors, or the board should fire the executives, or the stockholders should fire the board. (If Director Warren Buffet was on J-List, I give up.)

So here, JournoList is composed not of reporters who happen to be Progressives, but of Progressives who boast about how to perfect and use their capture of their employers. This is in itself institutional rot, but the more serious rot is the failure of the managers of those institutions to react to the problem. And if you search the WaPo over the past couple of days, there is nothing on the Daily Caller stories, so either management does not care or it does not read anything out of its comfort zone, such as the Daily Caller, and has not been informed by its subordinates, the former members of J-List (surprise!).

As for the academics on the list, were I a university president or trustee, I would be bothered by the idea that my scholars are so willing to hijack the institutional name and resources for political advocacy, but academia may be too far beyond redemption for its managers to grasp the concept that intellectual integrity is a brand value.

When will Americans wake up and see that the main stream nightly "news" is merely those with Television air time expressing their contrived version of the "news"?

Then there was the absolute plot by the media to discredit Sarah Palin in the media:

The conversation began with a debate over how best to attack Sarah Palin. "Honestly, this pick reeks of desperation," wrote Michael Cohen of the New America Foundation in the minutes after the news became public. "How can anyone logically argue that Sarah Pallin [sic], a one-term governor of Alaska, is qualified to be President of the United States? Train wreck, thy name is Sarah Pallin."

Not a wise argument, responded Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. If McCain were asked about Palin's inexperience, he could simply point to then candidate Barack Obama's similarly thin resume. "Q: Sen. McCain, given Gov. Palin's paltry experience, how is she qualified to be commander in chief?," Stein asked hypothetically. "A: Well, she has much experience as the Democratic nominee."

"What a joke, added Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. "I always thought that some part of McCain doesn't want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale."

Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama's "non-official campaign" would need to work hard to discredit Palin. "This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn't say - very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here - scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away .... bang away at McCain's age making this unusually significant .... I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama]."

Yet of course the media managed to gloss over and forget that Barack Hussein Obama had absolutely no experience either (other than 2 years voting "present" in the Senate)and he was to be President of the USA.

Yes, we were always taught that journalists didn't make the news, just reported it. Sorry America, that's not the case anymore. Does anyone care? Do you like the "news media" manufacturing the news and in a sense taking your vote?

From time to time Fox News gets attacked for its political leans. So far, no one has proved that Fox actually gets together with others and predetermines how to slant their "news" so that only their political leanings come forth. In fact there are obvious liberals at Fox News such as Shepard Smith and Geraldo Rivera.