Anything can be said, of course. And accusations of hypocrisy have become our daily news report. But statistical comparisons like the one Bozell offers make Schultz a joke. Hannity brings on people with contrary views, Shultz does not. His choice. But it is not unbiased, it is not journalism, and it is about as healthy for our body politic as Pravda was for the Soviets.

Interesting example. I agree, Hannity is totally, self-admittedly biased. Not just conservative, he is rooting for the Republicans. And yet he has liberals on for a counterpoint on almost every issue. Why don't we see that on Shultz's show? Or even on Chris Matthews? Certainly you will admit that Bashir is biased? That Andrea Mitchell overstates the case by using "veteran journalist" in her subtitle promo? Please!!

Does Fox lean right? Well, they certainly, to their credit, don't lean left. In my biased opinion they try to get a fair representation of facts out, identify opinion as opinion, and present opinion from both sides. If one side is so ludicrous as to strain credulity it's probably a lot to expect them to have a representative of every possible point of view. For example, with the exception of Donald Trump they mostly distanced themselves from the birth certificate issue. But to even compare them to MSNBC is absurd. They are nothing like MSNBC.

raul, have you read George Lakoff's book, Don't Think of an Elephant? I agree that bias is in the eye of the beholder. Lakoff asserts that the media is 90% "right wing." Now THAT is laughable. My comment is to quote somebody (was it Pat Moynihan?) who said you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. We have confused the two in recent years, in my opinion. The most eggregious example was during the debate about the fiscal impact of the Affordable Care Act. Nobody should be able to argue that using 10 years of tax revenue to pay for 6 years of services fairly reflects the fiscal effect of a bill. All the mainstream media parroted that "fact," using the silly adjective "non-partisan" to describe the CBO. Yeah, laughable.

When the "actor" volunteered to go back to his car and get his photo ID he said he'd be back "faster than you can say furious." It was priceless. I'm not quite as old as Thomas Sowell, but I have been around a few years. It seems to me that we are in a precipitous decline in standards of morals, certainly, but also of ethics. What about the standards of ethics of the legal profession? Is there nobody with integrity any more? Thank goodness for people like Adams who will blow the whistle on malefactors like Holder. I hope I live to see the day when he is held accountable for his refusal to enforce the law.

Anne, I agree with you. See my post above. It's about the principles. We get bogged down, lost in the details. We need a president and Congress with the integrity to walk a lot of this back, and a president who will appoint Supreme Court justices with the integrity to acknowledge when stare decisis is a cop-out because the prior decision was wrong. The Constitution isn't that hard to read.

Think about all the things involved: "hate crimes," political correctness, crony socialism, renegade government agencies, a Justice Department that refuses to enforce laws it doesn't like... Others could probably add ten times as many examples, better examples. The point is that "we the people" have gone to sleep on these issues. Napolitano may be careless in making the distinction between "federal law" and "Constitution," but his concerns are very valid. And it's an existential issue. It's only one small step down the slippery slope and we risk becoming Venezela.

So VickyD and WhatTeaParty? are correct, of course. This all started with Bush II (although it has obviously been perfected by Obama). And Romney has already been bullied into saying that of course he would have ordered the killing of Bin Laden. Who's to say he won't want to continue the drone strikes. Republicans never want to be known as weak on "national security." It will take a lot of integrity and a sustained effort to get us back on the track envisioned by our founders. This should be the top priority, even surpassing the economy and wars, if we are to have any hope of keeping alive this "last, best hope of earth."

Tacitus, we're so far down this path...how do we get find our way back? We really need a couple of terms with a POTUS who makes appointing Supreme Court justices with integrity a priority.

LOL..."this little cowardly gay eunuch"... as you launched into this I thought you were talking about "Pete" Stark (speaking of anti-Constitutionalists). Doesn't his manner, including his pink-shirt manner of dress, suggest that he might be.... a politician?