about the Exempt Media's supposed non-alignment in the world of politics. According to William Tate who published in The American Thinker, their supposed neautrality hides a deep and dangerous partisanship. Tate recently published an article exposing the New York Times' hypocrisy regarding the current brouhaha over George Bush's attempts to gather intelligence on terrorists.
According to Tate, under the Clinton Administration, there was a far more invasive intelligence program (code-named Echelon) and according to at least one official, the Clinton Administration sold the information gained from that program to the Democratic National Committee for purely partisan political use against their opponents.
At the time, the New York Times (and the rest of the Exempt Media) had a much more sympathetic approach to Clinton's (far more invasive) program, stating that "...few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists...". So what has changed since that time? Apparently, only the political affiliation of occupant of the White House. That and the fact that we are actually at war with a radical terrorost group that has already proven their willingness to kill all of us without compunction.
On is amused at how the professional partisans (certainly not real journalists) at the New York Times so blatantly fail to keep their stories straight. Or maybe the Exempt Media has merely forgotten that they can be fact-checked now by people like us.
Hat tips to the Duke of DeLand and Glenn Reynolds.