So let me get this straight.

Inkblot runs for President.
I work for CBS (Canine Broadcast Servide), and let it slip that Inkblot may have had improper relations with swans or geese.
Inkblot is defeated.
Two months later, my employer apologizes profusely.
My employment continues.

Is there a problem here?

It is almost as though the corporate media knows on what sides their bread is buttered...

I'll say the obvious..."Damn Liberal Media".

I was particularly disgusted by the Faux News "Baby Mama" moniker. I found it to be especially offensive, racist, and disrespectful. I continue to be amazed by Fox News' brazen partisanship and can't fathom how anyone could take that network seriously. There is no journalism going on there. They don't even try to be balanced. What a journalistic sewer it is, I'd sooner get my "news" from the Weekly World News.

I continue to be disgusted by MSNBCs brazen partisanship, or would be if anybody watched it. I missed the statement that most of the offensive comments were also BY Democrats.

can't say i'm surprised that democrats were the targets of the indefensible comments since most of them originated at fox.
now that msnbc doesn't have hillary to insult anymore, i suspect we'll see the consolidation of questionible remarks moving foxward.

We need to take over the WH and increase majorities in congress and BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!

'Mainstream' CORPORATE Media doesn't want to be regulated (in terms of concentrated ownership in markets) or taxed anymore than absolutely necessary.

It is no longer possible for for-profit corporations to be an unbiased source of news. Not only that but their media stars are paid million$ and are completely out of touch with the average citizens concerns and day to day realities. That's why I no longer depend on ANY of them for the facts on anything.

This began to become evident to me during the Whitewater/Lewinsky incidents of the Clinton administration and how disproportionatelt they were treated. But it was the color commentary during the invasion and occupation of Iraq that caused me to turn them off completely.

But but but... They are Fair and Balanced! Really.

I continue to be disgusted by MSNBCs brazen partisanship

Could you give an example?

Outraged Liberals: Stop Picking on Obama's Baby Mama!

Could be followed up with:

Outraged Conservatives: Stop Picking on McCain's Ho!

Seems fair to me.

Aside from the blatant Republican Party propaganda that comprises all of its programming, Fox News causes brain damage. Deliberately. It uses sophisticated video techniques that are carefully and scientifically crafted to actively reduce the intelligence of viewers. Watching Fox News not only makes you ignorant and misinformed, it actually makes you stupid.

It isn't an accident when someone calls Obama Osama. It isn't a natural phonological mistake. No one who supports Obama makes this mistake. These two words are only associated in the context of a deliberate smear. It is the sort of "mistake" one makes because one wants to smear someone with plausible deniability.

" I missed the statement that most of the offensive comments were also BY Democrats."

Unfortunately for you, irrelevant.

These people could be 9/11 Truthers and hardcore hippies in their private life. Who knows? The camera isn't on them. But when it is on them, they are spouting right wing bromides and using sleazy, underhanded, dog-whistle attacks on Obama and other Democrats.

And the reason they do that is because they have a job, and bosses, and those bosses are gazillionaire Republicans who benefit from Republican rule. These people do what their bosses to tell them to do, because they have to pay their bills. The name Ashleigh Banfield (and others) means something to them.

J. Norton :Outraged Conservatives: Stop Picking on McCain's Ho! Seems fair to me.

Not fair. Comrade Ho has been deceased for quite some time now.

I continue to be disgusted by MSNBCs brazen partisanship

Me too...

JESSICA YELLIN, former White House Correspondent:

"the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president."

Yellin today said that she was referring to her time at MSNBC.

I can think of three possible ways to explain why most of the apologies are for comments insulting Democrats:

1. Democrats get insulted more than Republicans
2. Insults of Repiblicans get apologized for more than insults of Democrats.
3. The result may have no significance due to the small sample size.

I favor #2. I think one could find many comparable insults of Republican bete noirs by Keith Olberman for which no apology has ever been made.

What's awful are the comments they haven't apologized for, notably the sexist ones.

The BBC would like to apologize for the preceding announcement, and for the following one as well. And we'd like to apologize for this apology.

Damn. Kevin, the leading High Broderist of the liberal blogosphere (he still leads the careerist Matt Yglesias), wakes up and at least admits that there might be a smell of coffee in the air. The endless (but necessary) repition of Bob Somerby must finally be sinking in.

To me, Olbermann on CountDown is akin to that moron Glen Beck's show on CNN. Though Olbermann is spot on most of the time. But that's entirely different from rank hackery by actual news anchors and news scroll during a network news telecast.

"I favor #2. I think one could find many comparable insults of Republican bete noirs by Keith Olberman for which no apology has ever been made." David

Olberman is op/ed. As ckelly notes, he's stating opinion. He's not trying to pass off what he says as "news". The only reason he'd have to apologize is if he had been wrong which, so far, he hasn't been. Sorry David if this offends you.

I think you were more accurate in #1) Democrats get insulted more than Republicans do.

Why all the mea culpas? Because if they pretend they're being fair by apologizing, then when it gets closer to November, it will look as though they are honest.

2008 elections: Diebolds are going to be working overtime in November...three-pronged approach: purging voter lists; smear campaigns; diebold machines. It's going to be an election to remember.

Inappropriate, gossipy, scurrilous, and/or just plain offensive remarks (not to mention fabricated or trumped-up allegations) are NOT coming primarily from Fox -- for many years now they have been coming from all over the airwaves (particularly from [MS]NBC), and from the print media, too (Dowd, Collins, Kristol, Quinn, Givhens, Milbank, Broder, Cohen, Sullivan, Seelye, etc., etc. One difference between this cycle and previous ones is that two of the major candidates are/were not white men -- which has led to all kinds of sexist and racist remarks. Another difference is that people on the "left" have finally started complaining about the media's treatment of major Dems. Too bad more people didn't complain when Gore was being called a serial fabricator and endlessly criticized for his wardrobe choices. Or when the Clintons were being accused of murder.

This is a traditional Repukeliscum tactic. Remember, it's better to apologize than to get permission. So, they talk about lynching Michele, and about Barack got rhythm. Scum.

aimed at a Democrat

The poor woeful conservative media, if you can't trash Dems that who can you trash, certain not Repugs.

I don't know WHY the Obama camp is creating a website to fight rumors because it seems that the netroots are covering the bases pretty well already.

I want to know when something permanant is going to be done with these talking heads. They are a disgrace to journalists everywhere. They serve no purpose but to waste air space with their hate, racism, sexism and over all stupidity. I am so over these morons. Where are the damn censors when you need one?

Fox News Changes: "Terrorist Fist Jab" Anchor E.D. Hill Loses Her Show, Laura Ingraham In At 5PM
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust buzz up Huffington Post | June 10, 2008 01:24 PM

The reason for the disparity is that you don't have to apologize for insulting a Republican.

Where are the damn censors when you need one?

Posted by: jc on June 13, 2008 at 4:12 PM |

China, N. Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Venezuala and the Liberal Blogosphere.

No one who supports Obama makes this mistake.
Posted by: David Houghton on June 13, 2008 at 1:59 PM |

Ted Kennedy

China, N. Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Venezuala and the Liberal Blogosphere.

Again with the inability to distinguish between moderation and censorship...Hint...the latter is a state function, and you just look silly when you keep repeating a fallacy that you have had repeatedly pointed out to you.

It is always amusing when the trolls accuse left-of-center blogs of being echo chambers that censor dissenting views given how many of the top right-wing blogs don't allow comments at all or ban posters for expressing a single dissenting view.

As for the suggestion that the apology disparity is due to a double standard in which Republicans can be insulted in the media without the offender being called to account, please provide examples as offensive as those in Kevin's excerpt from the WSJ article. Note: posts on a blog, especially those in the comment thread, do not compare with those on a major TV network.

Poor mhr; no one wants to be oppressed by him anymore.

It is always amusing when the trolls accuse left-of-center blogs of being echo chambers that censor dissenting views given how many of the top right-wing blogs don't allow comments at all or ban posters for expressing a single dissenting view.

THis blog deletes my comments all the time. I wouldn't care except they don't let on that it has been done and I see other comments attacking my comment that no longer exits. Pretty pitiful, actually. If you are going to delete the comments of those who don't agree, at least acknowledge that you did it. The SF Chronicle blog has even perfected a method that shows the deleted comment to the commenter but no one else. What technical virtuosity !

Interesting that there is no mention of the death of Tim Russert here.

Kevin, I think you're giving Olbermann too much grief here. I saw his comment on the air, and thought at the time that he was treating HRC pretty much the same way a commentator would treat any male candidate. He made no insulting reference to her gender, and I took it in much the same way I might have a reference to a male politician who needed to be brought in line with his party -- say, the way Bush leaned on Charlie Norwood to drop his support for a patients' bill of rights back in 2001.

Sure, maybe the frame itself is sexist, in that it implies that the way politics is done implicitly involves one man forcing his will on another. The sad fact is that this is still basically the state of affairs in general, and I didn't take Olbermann's comment as reflective of much more than considering HRC part of the "boy's club" of politics -- which as we all know, ain't beanbag. Which may itself be offensive on a sexist level to some people, but if so, there are much bigger targets than Olbermann with which to attack it.

Notice a pattern? Well, the pattern I noticed before I read your answer was that women were involved in receiving criticism in all but two. Your democrat pattern wins by one.