This article from National Review Online discusses the latest round of congressional ethics laws. While many of us would like to see more sunshine on the behavior of our politicians, we'd also like to believe that our news was free from bias.

This quote about the Washington Post from the above article says much:

The [ethical] waters are much murkier for the Washington Post, whose parent company shelled out $91,000 for an in-house lobbyist through the first six months of the year, according to the Senate Office of Public Records. (Not only did the Post lobbyist cover the Free Flow of Information Act, but he also lobbied on such varied issues as immigration reform, No Child Left Behind, and the District of Columbia Appropriations bill.)

Hmmmmm.

We know much of the MSM coverage is biased but for the nation's paper to hire a lobbyist on some of the biggest issues of our day, well....

Wouldn't it be of interest to you to have the Washington Post disclose, when they publish an article about, for example, immigration reform, what position they lobbied for and how much they spent?

Labels: Media