Sen. George Allen (R-VA) has introduced a bill that would let visitors carry a concealed firearm into a national park.

Perfect fodder for ridicule by the Big Media Left, right?  You got it.

Here’s some belittling language the New York Times scared up in its Wednesday editorial:

“a last little gift to America” … “we hope it will die the miserable death it deserves.  America’s confusion about the Second Amendment is now nearly total” … “armed paranoia” … “zealots who believe that the Second Amendment trumps all others, the parks are merely another badland, like schools and church parking lots”

Everything there but any facts or arguments which might make a sensible or reasonable case for Allen’s side.

For that, we had to wait two days — and search local coverage.

We learn these interesting facts and points of view in today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch.

• “In a twist, an Oct. 30 campaign letter by Jim Webb — the Democrat who narrowly defeated Allen — shows that he promised to introduce similar legislation.  ‘And I intend to get it to the floor for a vote,’ added Webb, who also noted his possession for many years of a concealed-carry permit and his regular shooting activity.”
• “some parks that authorize hunting do permit firearms use during open hunting season.”
• “A champion for Allen’s bill, Mike McHugh of Front Royal, is president of the Virginia Gun Owners Coalition.  ‘It’s odd that you can carry in the General Assembly in Virginia, but if you’re out in remote areas, like the Appalachian Trail, where two women had their throats slit … you can’t defend yourself,’ said McHugh, referring to the slayings of two hikers in 1996.”

Whether Allen’s bill is good policy should make for robust debate.  But is it too much to ask the New York Times to put facts first and mockery second?  Probably.

In Sunday’s paper, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell reignites the debate over media bias about politics. It’s a valiant, laudatory effort — “here I go into the lion’s den,” she writes– but in the end Howell rounds up the familiar folks to weigh in: Tom Rosentiel, S. Robert Lichter, and other usual suspects.

And therein lies the rub for furthering the debate over media bias. I’ve tried to argue this point with my conservative brethren for ages: Ultimately, the problem with the media is not liberal bias, for which there is abundant evidence, nor conservative bias, for which the evidence is far rarer, if it all. Rather, the unfortunate truth of today’s media is universality of thought. It’s fear of considering something new. It’s adhering to tried formulas and talking heads, whether or not they’re true or wise. It’s seeking comfort and stability in what all others are reading and seeing.

For liberals, that means a comfort zone called the New York Times. I’ve spent sufficient time in newsrooms to see the profound impact that the grey old lady has on story selection and editorial judgment. Not only because the paper is friendly territory for liberals — it surely is — but because it’s New York, where all the media execs live. If the New York Times has covered a story, then it’s safe to pursue for others. If it hasn’t, then don’t touch it.

Conservatives don’t get a free pass for this type of criticism. Try going on a conservative talk show without first scanning the Drudge Report to forecast which topics the host will raise. It can’t be done. Drudge provides the same cover for conservatives that the NYT does for liberals.

The media beast is a creature of habit. There’s little enterprise of thought. It keeps true to narratives and story lines: Gore is a earthtone-wearing weirdo. Bush is dumb. Try arguing against either of those points and you’ll be laughed out of the talk show studio. Even worse, the host or anchor will never ask you back.

No, the big-picture problem with the media isn’t bias — although it indeed is biased in favor of liberals. It’s laziness. Balance the newsroom politics, yes. But bring in new ideas. And try not reading the New York Times for a day.

In the Los Angeles Times, this correction …

Gay Republicans: An article in Section A on Wednesday about friction in the Republican Party between gays and religious conservatives said Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) had a campaign manager who is gay. The Allen staff member who is gay is his communications director.

…is right above this one:

Wesley Snipes indictment: A Business section article Wednesday about the indictment of Wesley Snipes on tax fraud charges gave two ages, 42 and 44, for the actor. Snipes is 44.

Fact checking?  Out.  Multiple choice?  In.

Republicans have been questioned about conflicting chronologies in the Mark Foley scandal story.  But check out this odd bit of timing for the media’s coverage, asserted by the Washington Post’s Jonathan Weisman:

The timing of the e-mails’ release appears to be more of a coincidence than an “October surprise,” designed to affect the outcome of the elections. It took more than a year for the e-mails to be published because one publication after another decided not to print them.

The one media outlet that did, ABC News, took them public in late September only because the lead reporter, Brian Ross, had put the story on hold for more than a month as he pursued stories commemorating the anniversaries of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

“Pursued” stories?  One event was a year old, the other event five.   How elusive and difficult were those stories?  They stumped even a top investigative reporter?

Great moments in CEO deniability.

Business Week has this exchange with Hewlett Packard CEO Mark Hurd about HP’s outsted CEO:

Business Week: Will you watch Carly Fiorina on 60 Minutes next Sunday?
Hurd: Is she on 60 Minutes? I didn’t know. If I’m around, and if it’s on in the room I’m in.

Perhaps he Hurd it through the Grapevine.

Great beginning to Mark Kilmer’s Redstate roundup of the Sunday talk shows:

This review is dedicated to the memory of Joe Wilson’s time in the limelight and to the erstwhile “scandal” which bore his name.

I’m now at the halfway point through the CBS News special “Dan Rather: A Reporter Remembers” (yes, buried deep Friday night before Labor Day weekend — nice gig, eh?) and I truly can’t determine whether the glass is half full or half happy. Or perhaps it means there’s room for more vodka.  By the way, couldn’t they have found anybody to go on the special and say nice things about him?  I mean, anyone?

CBS News’ Bob Schieffer was asked by WTWP radio this morning if he ever got the Katie Couric photo touch-up treatement.  “No, but I wish they had,” he joked. “I’d like to be a little taller.”

From the transcript of President Bush’s news conference today:

President Bush: Helen?
(LAUGHTER)
What’s so funny about me saying “Helen”?
(LAUGHTER)

… Actually, remembering Barbara Walters’ March 2000 interview of JonBenet Ramsey’s parents, one of the lowest points in TV news journalism ever:

BARBARA WALTERS: Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, did either of you have Anything to do with the death of your daughter?

JOHN RAMSEY: No.

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

BARBARA WALTERS: Mr. Ramsey, did you kill JonBenet?

JOHN RAMSEY: No, I did not.

BARBARA WALTERS: Mrs. Ramsey, did you kill your daughter?

PATSY RAMSEY: No, I did not kill my daughter.

BARBARA WALTERS: How do you feel when I ask you these questions?

PATSY RAMSEY: Insulted, pain, hurtful. How can I tell you how much I love my daughter. I love her from the depths of my being. It’s just unimaginable.

(transcript found at webbsleuths)