PA Pundit

James Taranto  (see item “Pope Is Catholic, Media Are Liberal”) notes:

Something odd is afoot in America’s elite media–increasingly, journalists are unabashed about admitting their liberal bias.

But Taranto isn’t sure what to make of this trend.  My answer: Be very afraid. 

Robert MacCoun has a good overview of the reasons why.  In particular: Cain, Loewenstein and Moore (“The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest“) have demonstrated that:

Disclosures can actually increase the influence of bias in expert advice; apparently experts – having “come clean” feel they have full license to say what they want without caution or qualification. Making matters worse, their audience – having heard the expert come clean – no longer adjust their understanding of the advice to correct for possible bias from the source.

And compounding this hazard is the fact that people generally underestimate their own biases, as summarized by Pronin, Gilovich and Ross (“Objectivity in the Eye of the Beholder: Divergent Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others“)

For the latest in modern media creating news instead of just reporting it, David Codrea has a hilarious expose of South-Eastern Pennsylvania media spinning what is at best a human-interest story about a handful of liberal activists “marching” around into many politically-loaded columns, editorials, and on-the-scene reports.  He muses:

[T]here appear to be more news outlets bellowing about this non-event than there are marchers.

For a study in just how seedy campaign fundraising and lobbying can get, don’t miss today’s Inquirer profile of Robert Feldman.  Granted, this man has not been charged with any crime during those activities.  But you have to read further into the article for some interesting details on Casey’s Jersey muscle: 

Feldman had built significant fund-raising muscle, and he began to exercise it. One example came in 2001, when Feldman served simultaneously as top fund-raiser for gubernatorial campaigns in two states – Casey’s in Pennsylvania and McGreevey’s in New Jersey.

As usual, Feldman’s network of donors sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to assist both men, records show.

This time, $250,000 donated to Casey was sent across the Delaware River into New Jersey.

The donations came in two installments, in March and October 2001, and were distributed to four political committees supporting McGreevey, finance records show.

The money transfers are striking because of their size and timing; in 2001, Casey was struggling to raise money for a primary fight against the better-financed Rendell.

Casey aides said it was a strategy: They hoped to generate good will in New Jersey so money would flow back to Casey.

Through the May 2002 Democratic primary, New Jersey donors gave $1.2 million to Casey and $885,000 to Rendell, records show.

Casey says he’s now fuzzy on the details.

This reminds me of a line by Homer Simpson in a particularly apt episode (search for “fuzzy”).

Does prior military service lend a speaker greater moral authority when it comes to questions of how to treat terrorists?  The media seem to think so, but James Taranto provides an exquisitely lucid rebuttal to this theory:

The argument is that unless we interpret the Geneva Convention as providing maximal protections to terrorists, our enemies will mistreat U.S. soldiers in their captivity. Assume for the sake of argument that this is true. If the restrictions on interrogations that Powell and McCain advocate result in another 9/11, then they will have sacrificed the lives of women and children in order to protect soldiers. Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around?

Further, McCain’s personal experiences–which lead people to be skittish about criticizing him on this subject–actually argue against his position. As a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, McCain suffered actual, brutal torture–not just aggressive questioning of the sort that the Bush administration seeks to legalize. America’s adherence to the Geneva Conventions did not protect McCain–even though he, unlike the al Qaeda detainees, was a legitimate prisoner of war; and Hanoi, unlike al Qaeda, had ratified the Geneva Conventions and thus was legally bound by them.

The whole point of the Geneva Conventions is reciprocity: Nations agree that when they fight wars, they will do so in accordance with some civilized rules. Extending the conventions’ protection to terrorists, who reject those rules, transforms Geneva into a suicide pact. John McCain is one of the Senate’s true war heroes, but in this area his personal experience seems to be clouding, rather than clarifying, his views.