It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to surmise which box I’ll be checking on November 4th. Approximately thirty seconds after meeting me, my politics become obvious. Most McCain supporters don’t dress like I do. Give me another minute to open my mouth, and there’s no doubt at all. I don’t mind wearing my political heart on my sleeve. I prefer my news media, however, to be unbiased.

For months, the Wall Street Journal has been pushing their liberal election agenda. It feels odd to me to be so affected by a point of view that I honestly agree with. But the source is wrong. I think the WSJ should give equal coverage to the candidates. They don’t pretend to. Thoughout the campaign, the rare McCain article was nearly always accompanied by an unflattering picture. They’d shoot top-down, emphasizing his heavy jowls. The pictures they chose to print of Obama were shot straight-on, or from below.

I only had a few photography classes, but even I know this kingmaking technique.

Today’s article was the worst, however: an “expose” of John McCain’s slaveowning forefathers, and the line of African Americans descended from that plantation. Above the fold. How much more obvious does it get when you smear a candidate with slavery in the first election with an African American candidate on the opposing side?

It doesn’t change my vote. But it will doubtless influence others. Not what I consider the best journalistic ethics. Whatever happened to straight shooting and fact checking? I guess Murdoch’s influence is already in play….