Via Honest Reporting where their sense of humour knows no bounds!

Given the seriousness of Mr. Fife’s violation of the basic principles of media objectivity, we contacted senior executives at CTV News to bring this matter to their attention and to ask how they will be dealing with this matter. We look forward to providing you with an update on how CTV will be handling this journalistic infraction from one of their senior journalists.

If you want further evidence that the Mainstream Media’s prime directive in 2012 will be to protect Barack Obama through lies & deception, look no further than this disgraceful screed from the Washington Post: Solyndra: Politics infused Obama energy programs
Iowahawk provides full analysis

[T]he New York Times itself did not report the Pentagon’s vindication until Christmas Day, when most people are occupied with family and fun, and buried it on page A20 under the headline “Pentagon Finds No Fault In Ties to TV Analysts.”

BREAKING NEWS: Bruce Cheadle casts aside the last pretense of objectivity.

Janet Robinson will step down as chief executive of the New York Times Co at the end of the month, as the company
continues to struggle with advertising declines and a years-long slump in its share price.

From the NYT comments – “Krugman, we want Krugman. The smartest man in the world. He knows everything and he’s right there. If not him, Friedman or maybe Brooks or Dowd. All super brilliant people. They have never, ever been wrong. Maybe get the whole bunch involved.”
h/t trappedintrudopia
Occupy NYT: “An SEC filing says Ms. Robinson will get $4.5 million plus health insurance for a 12-month retirement and consulting agreement, including “two-year non-competition, non-solicitation and non-disparagement covenants, a three-year cooperation covenant and an indefinite confidentiality covenant.”

“During the 11AM hour on MSNBC we reported on a blog item that compared a phrase used by the Romney campaign to one used by the KKK in the 1920s. It was irresponsible and incendiary of us to do this and showed an appalling lack of judgment. We apologize to the Romney campaign.”

(h/t Jared D)

A popular (and well founded) complaint about journalists is that the vast majority of them lean to the left and cannot seemingly report anything objectively anymore. Their bias always seem to seep through.
One of thousands of examples of this rampant bias was recently discussed here.
As the Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway points out in great detail, these journalists can’t even suppress their bias when they put their “fact check hats” on. The entire genre of Fact Checking articles is entirely based on the premise of an unbiased perspective. Yet they’re failing dismally at this.
Here’s a snippet from Hemingway’s excellent piece:

The media establishment has largely rallied round the self-satisfied consensus that fact checking is a noble pursuit. Nonetheless there are signs of an impending crack-up. In their rush to hop on the fact-checking bandwagon, the media appear to have given little thought to what their new obsession says about how well or poorly they perform their jobs.
It’s impossible for the media to fact check without rendering judgment on their own failures. Seeing the words “fact check” in a headline plants the idea in the reader’s mind that it’s something out of the ordinary for journalists to check facts. Shouldn’t that be an everyday part of their jobs that goes without saying? And if they aren’t normally checking facts, what exactly is it that they’re doing?

Coynespeak for “recognizing a problem and voicing it.”

The investigations were spurred by a 2008 Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times story that strongly implied the practice of giving briefings to retired military analysts (RMAs) violated Pentagon rules against propaganda. The story also suggested the ex-officers, some of whom worked as defense contractors, received financial favors from the Pentagon because of their roles.
[…]
In the end, no agency found wrongdoing.

Columbia Journalism Review critiques Associated Press;

A lot of cancer is more newsworthy than a little cancer, or so seems to be lesson of an Associated Press article about possible consequences of the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan.
With a long-term population study of the impact of just getting under way, the AP set out to do a bit of enterprise reporting, asking what it might find with regard to cancer rates. The answer: “cancers caused by the radiation may be too few to show up” in such studies because “the ordinary rate of cancer is so high, and our understanding of the effects of radiation exposure so limited.” As the AP reported, “that could mean thousands of cancers under the radar in a study of millions of people, or it could mean virtually none.” Yet overall, its article is clearly structured to induce at least a modicum of fear. After all, scary stories sell papers.

And now a reader in the nuclear industry critiques CJR;

What’s ironic about this story is that the CJR criticizes the MSM for neglecting the notion that there will likely be no increased rates of cancer due to Fukushima, but they themselves seem to be unaware that there’s the distinct possibility that cancer rates could actually decrease. It’s known as hormesis, the effect of low levels of stressors which could provide positive biological benefit. Just as vaccination introduces minor toxins in order to prepare the body to fight major diseases, low levels of radiation exposure can help the body to better combat certain forms of cancers.
But since that goes against the official storyline, don’t hold your breath for even moderate voices to discuss this in respectable news media.

More: A different Fukushima flashback from James Delingpole, along with this related item from Scientific American.
Related update: “These findings mesh with those from numerous other studies that point to a sweet spot at which radiation becomes a help rather than a harm to human health.”

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
EVIDENCE – Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC):

Minister Toews, I want to thank you personally for your persistent support for those like me in our caucus who stand against the long-gun registry.
Bill C-391 and C-19 are both straightforward bills that end the requirements for individuals and businesses to register non-restricted, non-prohibited firearms. I was concerned this morning when I read media reports of an analysis done by officials. A certain official thought that both C-391 and C-19 could have a number of unintended consequences, including the trafficking of firearms at the border.
I was concerned about this report. Is it accurate? Can you comment on this official’s opinion?

Hon. Vic Toews:

I had a chance to take a look at that article. I wasn’t familiar with the memorandum, which an official in my department had prepared, I assume, for internal purposes. But now that I’ve seen it, it’s clear that the analysis presented by this official is factually flawed; it’s incorrect. I’ve asked my deputy minister to look into the matter.
Contrary to the suggestion made in the analysis, neither Bill C-19 nor Bill C-391 removes any controls on the importation of firearms. In fact, we have increased penalties for the illegal importation of firearms. Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to end this wasteful, ineffective long-gun registry once and for all. That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re not getting into the areas this memorandum suggested we might get into. I think the memorandum is phrased to suggest that if we did something else, the repercussions would be such and such. But we’re not going down that road.

Ms. Candice Hoeppner:

Just to be clear, C-19 doesn’t change the way our border officials are able to monitor, track, or stop legal guns from coming into the country.

Hon. Vic Toews:

No. The analysis of whether or not something is a prohibited or non-restricted firearm has nothing to do with the registry. That’s an analysis that the officers make at the border and elsewhere throughout the country. Tying that to C-19 is a bit of a red herring. As I said, the analysis is quite flawed.

Ms. Candice Hoeppner:

Thank you for clarifying that. I’m sure it will be clarified in future media reports as well.

Hon. Vic Toews:

Don’t bet on it.

h/t Just Another Jaybird

Remember Kai Nagata? It appears that America has discovered its very own Journo-Activist in the persona of one Natasha Lennard. Like Nagata, she wrote her own version of “Don’t Cry For Me Argentina”.
Not everyone is so quick to let her off the hook though. Are J-Schools actually able to churn out unbiased journalists anymore or is every graduate predestined to be a far left “social activist”?!
Here’s Lennard helping organize a group of fellow comrades: