Sinclair Broadcasting is planning to air Stolen Valor, a documentary on John Kerry's anti-war activities. Some people are upset. I'm not surprised. It is never pleasant being gored by your own ox.

No one seems to be asking is if it is true? Are there any outright lies in the documentary or even any Michael Moore-style half truths packaged to give you the wrong impression? If not then what is the objection? That a media company is broadcasting material about a presidential candidate's background that could swing the election? Isn't that what CBS did with the Bush AWOL story? How are these different?

Kerry's anti-war past should not even be an issue. The Mainstream Media (MSM) should have covered this back during the primaries. Why didn't they and why is it that no MSM outlet has looked into the charges made by the SwiftVets?

Because it could hurt their candidate. By an overwhelming margin they want Kerry to win so they are holding back stories that might hurt him while running anti-Bush stories based on forged memos and partisan witnesses.

Speaking of Michael Moore, he now has two anti-Bush books on the stands plus a DVD. The Day After Tomorrow just hit the stands, also. That was the first movie that was supposed to chase Bush out of the White House.

Speaking of the CBS memos, on the radio yesterday I heard a media analyst wondering why the CBS story got so much coverage but the story about Fox's made-up quotes sank? I thought that is was obvious. The CBS AWOL story was picked up by every newspaper in the country and kicked off an ad campaign by the Texans for Truth, a 527 formed just to air advertise Bush/AWOL ads. When it turned out that the story was bad, every news outlet that had picked up the original story had to run the story about the forgeries as a retraction.

By contrast, someone at Fox typed in the wrong notes to the Fox web site. They were removed a few hours later with an apology. The scope of the story is completely different.

This guy should know that.