Biased, chicken, hypocrital editorial writers

I try to imagine the anonymous editorial writer at the LATimes who wrote the slam piece on Dr. Dobson. (The editorial ignored Dr. Dobson's issue -- early homosexual indoctrination of our children -- and instead lampooned the false MSM assumption that an angry and homophobic Conservative Christian was upset merely because Sponge Bob and Patrick held hands. An embarrassed LAT had to run a correction after CSM and other blogs attacked.)

I have trouble imagining him ... or is it her? ... because of the quaint and antiquated tradition of editorial anonymity at print newspapers. This impenetrable veil is far worse than the not-so-hidden opinions of the supposedly neutral reporters and anchors. They're maddening, but at least they are in the open for all to see.

Whoever wrote that nasty and misleading editorial did it knowing his or her identity would never be known outside the chummy club at One Times Square. If O'Reilly, Hannity, Franken and Matthews can look in a camera and state their opinions, and columnists of all persuasions byline their pieces, what excuse do newspaper editorial writers have to not do the same? This writer may have done more research if he/she knew his/her name would be signed under the editorial, and that would have been a service to the truth and the LAT's readers.

So, re-imagining this writer as someone with a name, I see a person who is so caught up in dislike of Conservative Christianity that the glee of attack overwhelmed the professional practices of journalism, and bitterness poured out unfettered by ethics. Other staffers read it, chuckled and high-fived! Good stuff! Love it! You da man/woman! Never did one of them think they couldn't trust the NYTimes, which broke the "story," and their bias and dislike led them to undertaking none of the MSM's vaunted fact-checking -- the same fact-cheking they use to flog the blogs.

So what are we left with? Biased hypocrites who are afraid to come out in the open.