The title of Part Three is the actually the headline affixed to columnist Michael Malone's piece which appeared October 24 at ABCNews.com. The subheadline is, "Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why."

Since you can read it in its entirety at http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1, let me summarize what I have to add in four paragraphs.

Malone's analysis is brilliant. I wholly concur with what is the overriding conclusion. In its pell mell rush to elect pro-abortion Barack Obama, the traditional media outlets are seeking possible short-term gain--the election of a man they adore--at the almost guaranteed long-term price of forever losing its claim to authority. As he points out, the very embodiment of partisan journalism--Dan Rather--recently acknowledged the obvious.

You may have heard that Obama's vice presidential running Joe Biden said this: "(M)ark my words, within the next, first six months of this administration if we win, you're gonna face a major international challenge, because they are going to want to test him...." This remarkable statement largely disappeared without a bubble.

But if John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, had said that McCain's election would generate an international crisis to test his mettle, Rather believes "it would be above the fold in most newspapers today . . . the newspapers would have jumped all over this and so would the major television outlets."

My only other observation is that Malone echoed the sentiments of many Americans (including me) when he warned that attempting to destroy the character of "Joe the Plummer" for the "sin" of securing an answer from Sen. Obama that Obama no doubt wishes he hadn't made, is profoundly scary.

Part One
Part Two