Howard Kurtz whines that “[Conservative] candidates seem to regard it as an affront when reporters challenge them on their past statements and inconsistencies, which is a basic function of journalism. They are avoiding or limiting interviews with all but the friendliest faces as a way of circumventing the press. And some of them delight in skewering the mainstream media, a tactic that plays well with their base.” It’s interesting that Kurtz doesn’t mention the Obama administration’s attempt to boycott Fox News, and its ongoing complaints about that network.  

Conservative aversion to the media is indicative of a key fact about conservatives. Unlike liberals, who continually try to implement big government/socialist policies in spite of the fact that they fail every single time they are tried, our media aversion proves that conservatives can be taught.

We have been carefully educated by liberal journalists. This training began back in 1993 when Kurtz’ employer, the Washington Post, informed us that we were “poor, uneducated, and easy to command.” During the Clinton administration, we were assured that all we cared about was Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity, and that - to paraphrase Polanski apologist Whoopi Goldberg - it wasn’t perjury-perjury. Move along.  Nothing to see here.

The lesson of how heartily most journalists seem to despise conservatives has been reinforced by decades of selective coverage. Trent Lott was run out of his leadership position for an intemperate attempt to compliment former Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond. Robert Byrd’s Klan leadership, Civil Rights filibuster and public use of a racial slur as recently as 2001 was glossed over. Ted Kennedy was promoted as a champion of women’s rights. (Mary Jo who?  What waitress sandwich? These are not the droids you are looking for.) The Washington Post pounded George Allen with days of front page Macaca coverage. Tea Party coverage has been minimized, except when some nut job is available to become the representative of us all. SEIU thugs beat and rampage at will and on camera, while their media advocates look the other way.  

The media uncritically accepts and promotes the lie that Congressmen were spat on and subject to racial insults - in spite of the many video recordings disproving those claims.  The media engaged in a knee-jerk defense of ACORN after a handful of college students exposed it for the corrupt disgrace that it is. Sexual scandals of the left are minimized yet on the right are maximized.  Obama is permitted to demonize Republicans for not approving an unemployment extension, when the GOP is perfectly willing to approve the extension - just as soon as it adheres with the pay-go policies that Obama campaigned on and that Democrats passed. The Washington Post obliquely mentions that tiny detail, in the last sentence of the article. There are far too many examples to list.  

Kurtz specifically complains that Sarah Palin is inaccessible to the media which parses her every word (while Gaffemaster Biden and 57 state corpse-man Obama get free passes), and which gleefully promoted lies by the young man whose main claim to fame is impregnating Palin’s daughter.  It sure is hard to imagine why Palin would bypass the “lamestream” press filter in favor of publishing on Facebook, where readers get every word and it’s all in context.  

Kurtz continues, “Both [Sharon Angle and Rand Paul] seem to think the media's primary role should be to help them -- raise money, carry a message -- rather than hold them accountable.”  The media’s primary role certainly does appear to be carrying messages for politicians - as long as they are Democrats. The Washington Post ombudsman eventually admitted - safely after the election - its clear bias in favor of President Obama. So why is Kurtz surprised that conservatives have assimilated the media’s new mission and would like to see it applied impartially?

In all fairness, there are journalists who will give conservatives a fair hearing, and who will report what they say in context. But the Washington Post has earned conservative’s suspicion.