What was that about no media bias?

A couple of days ago,

I took Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz
to task for appearing to legitimize the establishment press' claim that they in no way show more of a favorable bias towards coverage of Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore over rival GOP nominee George W. Bush.

My short answer to that was, "Yeah -- right." But I said so because I know there is a bias. The establishment boys and girls also know, but since they're the ones guilty of fostering it, they'll not tell you the truth -- that they so despise Bush and conservatives that they'll do anything within their power to help a rival (Gore) get elected.

Unfortunately -- and collectively -- the establishment press does wield quite a bit of power when it comes to shaping public opinion. The influence is much less than years ago, thanks to talk radio, the Internet and independent news organizations like this one. But it's still a very powerful influence.

Nevertheless, the charges I made a few days ago still stand: The mainstream press has a bias against Bush, Republicans, conservatives and any political party espousing any of those "leanings."

TRENDING: Montana lawmaker follows Trump's lead, moves to designate Antifa as domestic terror group

I didn't have to wait long to prove my point, even beyond the examples I provided Tuesday.

In that column, I wrote:

"In his piece, Kurtz tried to vindicate his establishment press pals with this proclamation: 'Major newspapers led the way in unearthing a raft of scandals involving President Clinton -- the New York Times broke the Whitewater story, the Los Angeles Times was out front on the 1996 fundraising abuses and The Washington Post broke the Monica Lewinsky story. What's more, the media provided unusually upbeat coverage of John McCain, a conservative Republican, during the primaries.'

"A few things here come to mind.

"First and foremost, Kurtz wishes, perhaps, that the Post' broke the Monica Lewinsky story.' No, Mr. Kurtz -- that was the venerable Matt Drudge of the

Drudge Report -- the cyber-sleuth you people love to hate but can't seem to catch up with."

Seems like Matt did it to the big press boys again.

On Tuesday, Drudge reported that editors for ABC Evening News with Peter Jennings spiked a story "that featured an on-camera interview with a source who claimed a Gore staffer bragged about a mole inside of Bush headquarters.

"ABC NEWS award-winning reporter Jackie Judd and fearless producer Chris Vlasto sat in horror as they were told their investigation would not see the light of day," Drudge said.

He added that the 12-minute interview was instead modified for publication on the

ABCNews.com website -- where far fewer people would see it but where it would still give the politically biased finks at ABC News the ability to claim, "Hey, we published it, didn't we?"

It is that type of obfuscation and chicanery that flies in the face of establishment press rantings that "we're not biased" against Bush. It also saps the credibility of establishment television news networks and newspapers that love a "RATS" story but obviously hate one about "moles."

Do you doubt that had the political parties been reversed in a similar "theft of debate materials" scenario that ABC News -- along with CNN, NBC, Fox and MSNBC -- would have aired the interview and the story?

I don't. I don't think you doubt it either.

Drudge's story (again) makes it impossible for guys like Kurtz and papers like the Washington Post to claim, even thinly, that there is "no credible evidence" suggesting mainstream editors are favoring Gore.

I also reported in my column on Tuesday that about 84 percent of top editors surveyed in 1996 during the Clinton-Gore re-election were avowedly liberal in their political beliefs and wholehearted supporters of the Clinton administration. With examples like ABC News and the other establishment boys and girls during this election cycle, do you believe that percentage has changed?

I don't. I don't think you believe it, either.

Consumers in America choose products based largely on what they can afford, but quality plays a key role in those decisions. American consumers won't buy consistently faulty or flawed products because after being burned by them, they learn better.

The editors and managers who permeate the self-proclaimed "hallowed halls" of the fourth estate should use that knowledge to their advantage. They should realize that news consumers also won't "buy" what they're selling if consumers are consistently burned by lies, half-truths or outright omissions of top, important stories.

But they obviously haven't learned. And that's OK with those of us who have. We'll be glad to take the readers; at least we respect them enough and believe they are intelligent enough to decide what to make of issues on their own.

We just report the news here at WND. We don't create it, alter it, hide it or slant it. Welcome, truth-seekers.