MEDIA BIAS... STORM OVER GINSBERG

A couple days ago the Kerry camp and liberals were loving the news that came out about Benjamin Ginsberg was helping the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth within the boundaries of the law.

James Taranto at The Wall Street Journal points out the hypocrisy of Kerry supporters and the major media outlets since they are painting Ginsberg's involvement worse than those of Joe Sandler and Robert Bauer. Reading below you will find their actions on par:

Ginsburg tendered his resignation today to defuse the controversy. Yet if you read the articles all the way through, you find that this is either a complete nonstory or something of which both sides are equally guilty. Here are the final two paragraphs of the AP dispatch:

Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the [Democratic National Committee] and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once.

In addition to the [Federal Elections Commission's] coordination rules, attorneys are ethically bound to maintain attorney-client confidentiality, Sandler said. They could lose their law license if they violate that, he said.

And here's the fourth paragraph of the Times piece:

The campaign of Senator John Kerry shares a lawyer, Robert Bauer, with America Coming Together, a liberal group that is organizing a huge multimillion-dollar get-out-the-vote drive that is far more ambitious than the Swift boat group's activities. Mr. Ginsberg said his role was no different from Mr. Bauer's.

When the Times asks a Kerry spokesman about Bauer, he evades the question:

"It's another piece of evidence of the ties between the Bush campaign and this group," Chad Clanton, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry, said. Asked about his campaign's use of shared lawyers, Mr. Clanton said, "If the Bush campaign truly disapproved of this smear, their top lawyer wouldn't be involved."

Yet the Times still put the story on the front page with a headline suggesting that the Bush campaign is guilty of something. Doesn't the paper have any concern about its own credibility as a disinterested provider of news?