Compare and contrast two different approaches by the media to a November surprise. First up, Michael Medved writes:

Today’s media obsession involves the apparently disgusting behavior of one Ted Haggard, who just resigned as President of the National Association of Evangelicals. Four days before an election, we don’t talk about the startling new unemployment figures (the best in five years!) or progress against North Korea (winning concessions no one expected). Instead, we’re treated to excruciating detail about a pastor from a Colorado Springs mega-church who admits that he purchased methamphetamines and received massages from a gay prostitute.

Isn’t the partisan agenda utterly transparent in the intense attention focused on this story? Very few Americans had ever heard of Haggard before the scandal broke yesterday; he is in no sense a household name. He is not a candidate for any public office, nor has he played an especially visible role in this election. Had these charges been made against a liberal pastor, or an atheist activist of any stripe, it’s hard to believe that cable news networks would cover the story as if it were deeply significant?

The purpose of the Haggard focus is to remind everyone of Mark Foley, the media “Golden Oldie” from a few weeks ago. The cherished theme – that Republicans and conservatives only pretend to honor morality, but actually behave horribly in their private lives – gets big time re-enforcement from Haggard’s heinousness. Just as the Foley Fiasco managed to stop Republican momentum a month ago, so the tawdry Ted-stuff is supposed to stop the current surge toward the GOP in key races across the country?

It may work, alas, even though the media bias emerges as ugly and undeniable.

I guess it could work--but as Medved writes, "Very few Americans had ever heard of Haggard before the scandal broke yesterday; he is in no sense a household name". I certainly had never heard of him until today (and neither had the otherwise omniscient Professor). And after the Foley scandal, I suspect the American public is somewhat inured to the now seemingly routine gay outing (which is a tacit form of gay bashing, after all) by the liberal media.

The Haggard story contrasts nicely with a self-inflicted gaffe by someone who is a household name, and the media's efforts to downplay it as much as possible. Newsbusters writes:

Inured as we are to MSM bias, this one was still stunning. A leading MSM member uses the airwaves to scold Democrats for being insufficiently loyal to a leading party light.

Former Bush Chief of Staff Andy Card was Matt Lauer's guest on this morning's 'Today.' Matt was intent on wangling from Card an admission that the Kerry comments were a mistake:

Lauer first offered his personal analysis: "He made a joke and he said he blew the joke and it sounded as though he questioned the intelligence of U.S. troops in Iraq."

He then demanded of his guest: "Look me in the eye and tell me with even a fraction of your heart you think John Kerry meant to question the intelligence of U.S. troops in Iraq."

Uhh, OK, Matt--here you go.

Update: Maybe Matt should read this.