An organization devoted to fairness and accuracy in reporting points out the depravity of the mainstream media in its coverage of Republican Ron Paul. A reality based evaluation of a situation is too much for the people who have propagated a bogus story of 9-11 so long that they believe it themselves. The points are presented well.

The authors of this opinion piece seem unaware that the reason the allies had a no-fly zone in Iraq and were bombing military installations was because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent savage attacks by Saddam Hussein's military on unfavored groups in Iraq with weapons of mass distruction. The rest of the article unravels from there. Ron Paul is a totally unimaginable candidate for President, as anyone who analyzes his votes as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives will readily conclude. The people who run FAIR no doubt wish that the Republicans nominate him as their party would then win 75% or more of the vote in 2008.

Contrasts the way media treat "fringe candidates" who dare bring up topics the media don't talk about, versus dull, risk-averse Republicans also polling at the bottom of the pack. While the evidence of bias FAIR presents is really strong, FAIR's speculation that the media "don't want to have" these debates is a little unpolished. Why would that be? Money?