The Convenience of Self-Identifying Media Bigots

Via Michelle Malkin I see that Mike Wallace has made a public appearance in support of the Brady Bunch gun-grabbers. Not really surprising. But there is a lot of grumbling over media bias, and people rightfully question whether Wallace should be covering gun-control issues on his program, 60 Minutes, now that he has become visibly identified with one side of the issue. Jeff at Alphecca opines

Look, public people, even TV reporters, can certainly mail off a check if they want to their favorite causes (organizations) but should they really be showing up in person at such events and then try to claim they are still impartial in the stories they report concerning issues backed or attacked by such organizations?

Let's just use an analogy: If Katie Couric of NBC's Today Show appeared and supported a fundraiser by a pro-abortion group, shouldn't that disqualify her -- or at least require her to preface her reporting -- of stories about pro-abortion or pro-life issues?

I agree that it's preferable that Wallace not report on gun issues or that he be required to preface any such reporting, but there's another way to look at this. Advocacy groups expend a lot of time and effort trying to uncover such bias, so they should be grateful when an enemy makes himself known. Wallace has done all the hard work for us and has clearly identified himself as an enemy to gun-rights advocates. We now know without any doubt that Wallace is an anti-gun bigot whose reporting on such issues cannot be trusted. I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this highly preferable to having him quietly mail off his check to the Bradys, keep his bias low-key, and then report about gun issues on 60 Minutes pretending to be objective.