[Cerek the Barbaric]

Well I think this article does an excellent job of pointing how much bias is present in the MAJORITY of other media stories.

As John D. pointed out, this is the first article to refer to the Skull and Bones Society in a positive light. Why? The only difference is because Kerry was also a member. All those publications that have used the S&B Society as one more reason to slam Bush now either have to back off that assessment or admit that it applies to Kerry too. So my guess is that we've seen the last of the Skull and Bones Society being mentioned in the media regarding the Presidential race...and if we DO hear about it, you can rest assured it will be in a "positive light" as was done in this article.

But there is another good example of the bias of other media being highlighted by this article...and that is the reference to the documentation provided by President Bush staff to account for his supposed absence from the National Guard. The article admits the documentation is not as thorough as it could be, but concludes that it is sufficient to show that Bush probably did serve his time without being "AWOL". Unlike other articles that have discounted the documentation out-of-hand and claimed it didn't prove anything.

So - by actually presented the facts regarding BOTH candidates in an even-handed manner - the article actually highlights the amount of bias present in almost every other article or news story (on both sides) regarding either President Bush or John Kerry.