Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, Inc., one of the many well-funded cogs in the right-wing noise machine, makes his living by tirelessly and relentless attacking the mainstream media for being "liberal." His hackles are raised at the slightest hint that journalists are not following the Republican Party line. He is noted for his extreme sensitivity.

In one recent diatribe entitled "U.S. Media lose big in Iraq" (Jan. 31, 2005), Kincaid attempts to paint the media as anti- democratic:

To their credit, the millions of Iraqis who turned out to vote must not have been watching American TV. If they had tuned into that day's edition of NBC's Meet the Press, they would have seen John Kerry, the former Democratic candidate for president, undercutting their commitment to freedom and democracy by saying that the Iraqi election was not fully legitimate because some people from terrorist-infested areas might not go to the polls. It was another demoralizing message from the U.S. media and one of their favorite politicians.

[...] The questions we should put to our own media include: Why did you tell us that Iraq was going so badly when it is now clear beyond doubt that the people there wanted a democratic government?  Why did you focus on the death and destruction and not on the Iraqi thirst for democratic government?  Why did you highlight the strength of the terrorist "insurgents" and not the value of the U.S. mission to bring freedom to the people of Iraq?

Of course, Kincaid does not deny that the Iraq election "was not fully legitimate" -- this is a fact, and not just because Sunnis boycotted it and there was trouble in unsecured regions. It was also "not fully legitimate" because the electorate knew very little about the more than 7000 candidates, most of whom campaigned anonymously. The election should be applauded because it is the first hint of legitimacy in the entire Iraq adventure, but nobody is claiming it to be "fully legitimate."

No, Kincaid's problem is that Kerry and the media were "undercutting [Iraqis'] commitment to freedom and democracy" by stating the truth. Kincaid believes that the media shouldn't bother reporting events or facts unless they support the preferred line of the administration. The White House holds press conferences every day to get out the pro-freedom message. Why would news media go to the trouble of sending reporters all the way to Iraq, unless they were trying to undermine freedom?

But certainly there is more to Kincaid's extreme sensitivity. Take, for example, his evidence of "Liberal bias at Newsweek" (Jan. 27):

Reporter Claudia Kalb reported that health officials were "taking no chances" and shipping "the most potent antimalarial treatment" to the affected areas. That's false. The most potent treatment, as Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times now admits, is DDT.  But that has been banned by the U.N. and the radical environmentalists.

What an eye for nuance Kincaid has! I'll bet that detail completely escaped the Newsweek editors. Although, not to split hairs, but I believe napalm has been proven more effective than DDT in reducing the number of victims of malaria.

And speaking of nuance -- I'll bet your wondering how Kincaid and AIM would handle the growing and disturbing story of covert propaganda, in which the government has revealed that it has paid at least three conservative commentators to support its programs. You might expect AIM to take this opportunity to expose the corrupt and burgeoning practice of payola in the media -- but that wouldn't be nuanced! Instead, in a press release (Jan. 26), AIM takes aim at PBS!

"The liberal media have found another conservative scalp, that of syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, to hang on their wall, along with that of Armstrong Williams. But the money involved in these two cases is peanuts compared to the $400 million being taken from U.S. taxpayers every year to finance the Corporation for Public Broadcasting," charged Kincaid.   "Yet we don't hear any cries from the press about liberals on NPR or PBS getting government hand-outs."

Wow! I would have totally missed this connection if not for the sensitive, nuanced eye of Kincaid. While we at PoliAnna got upset that the Bush administration is secretly paying conservative hacks to back its controversial social programs, we completely missed the millions of dollars pumped into liberal programming like Sesame Street. Right under our nose! It's true -- no one will ask about the Big Bird in the kitchen.

A second press release the following day ("Gallagher and PBS: What's the difference?") drives the nuance home:

The Washington Times has reported that Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has urged PBS to refund taxpayer dollars used toward production and circulation of a cartoon program featuring lesbian parents. The particular episode of "Postcards from Buster" was scheduled to air on February 2 in classrooms across the country.

This report comes just a day after Accuracy in Media (AIM) called for an end to taxpayer dollars subsidizing public radio and television broadcasts. AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid says that it has become clear since Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post reported that Maggie Gallagher accepted compensation for a story that the liberal media are only against taxpayer subsidies for journalists when conservative.

Of course, as you probably know by now, this supposedly innocent cartoon was really an insidious piece of propaganda to promote the maple-sugaring agenda. Thank goodness lapdogs -- I mean, watchdogs like Kincaid can join government officials like Spellings to keep our media clean and maple-sugar free!