Newspapers get a jab from down under...

This article could not have come at a better time:

one of the many reasons why I decided to start blogging

Its just too bad this came AFTER the election. If you were surveying newspapers and channels alike during the campaign season, it was very clear who big media was for and I have no doubt in my mind that significantly helped President-Elect Obama to win the undecided votes and swing a few states in his favor. TV, being the most popular and widely utilized means of media, would never, and did not, endorse Obama, so many of the networks stuck to implicit means toward favoring Obama. It was the printed media, especially those established on the liberal coasts, that pulled no punches in endorsing the Democratic nominee. How is this, in any way, shape or form, objective? How is endorsing a candidate, no matter what party, good journalism when there is obvious partisanship, and even worse, agenda and bias. Murdoch is right on the money in that when editors dictate what should and should not be printed you lose your credibility as a news source. Even worse, you lose your clientele because you are slapping them in the face by spoon-feeding their opinions, instead of allowing for the formulation of their own.

And so, better late than never, a corporate media mogul is calling out the editors and writers of mass media. A step in the right direction, I say. If you feel the same way by your local newspaper, boycott them until they change or go out of business. It is their choice to adopt or fail.