Please Welcome Matt Drudge To The Lib'rul "Enemedia"

James Joyner has a post this morning entitled "Matt Drudge, Liberal Tool?". Now if James had just left out the word "liberal" from that headline it would be uncontentious...but no, it seems that Alicia Colon from the New York Sun is accusing Drudge of disseminating the liberal "propaganda of the enemedia". I kid you not. James, as amazed at this as I am, has an extract of the idiocy:

Matt Drudge, who may or may not be a willing accomplice to the distortion of news reporting, must be held responsible for the dissemination of the bias in the liberal press. Studies have shown that the readership of the Times is down — as it is in other liberal publications — and so are the television ratings of the alphabet networks and CNN and MSNBC, while Fox News is up.

Nevertheless, the propaganda of the enemedia — an excellent descriptive term coined by one poster to Lucianne.com — continues to sully news coverage, thanks to Mr. Drudge. A study of press bias by a professor of political science at the University of California-Los Angeles, Tim Groseclose, listed the Drudge Report as one of the most liberal sites on the Web because it consistently posts articles from left-of-center sources.

My patience with the Drudge Report ended when I saw a photo of Frank Rich of the Times posted on the site along with his words: “We are losing in Iraq.” It isn’t too encouraging to the morale of the nation, but posts like this are common on Drudge.

The site gives top billing to every possible negative statement about the Iraq war and the Bush administration, and it gets about 13 million hits a day. Is it any wonder that President Bush has record low approval ratings?

The week before, Mr. Drudge posted a quote from the new secretary of defense, Robert Gates: “We are not winning in Iraq.” Did he really say those words? No. At Mr. Gates’s confirmation hearing, Senator Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, asked him if we were winning in Iraq, and he answered, “No.”

I swear i didn't make this up. The publishers actually expect people to shell out hard cash to read the hardcopy of this drivel.

Not too long ago, Glenn Greenwald caught the NY Sun in some blatant fauxtography over a picture that they said was of the mastermind of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, but that turned out to be of imprisoned terrorism-suspect Jose Padilla. I noted then that the Sun isn't fit to wrap fish in (you would never get the stink off the fish) having been one of the rags that pushed Amir Taheri's infamous "Iranian yellow stars for Jews" fable as well as Sada's fairy tale about Iraqi WMD's.

But surely this time even the most reality-challenged of the uber-right must realise that the Sun has lost the plot. Could one of them, perhaps, explain that they are meant to drink the kool-aid, not stuff the raw powder up their noses?