But upon leaving corporate TV's criticism-free zone, where such lies as Rockefeller's statement that "Medicare is gonna start going broke in 2017, which is like the day after tomorrow," pass completely unchallenged, they each were questioned by real-life journalist Sam Husseini of WashingtonStakeout.com (9/15/09).

Compare the treatment described above with Husseini's calm but determined questioning of the pols:

Sam Husseini: Health insurance mandates--don't they end up being a subsidy for the insurance companies, because you're mandating that people go out and buy their product?

Mary Landrieu: ...I'm not carrying water for the insurance companies....

SH: You say you're not carrying water, but your No. 1 contributor is JP Morgan Chase, PACs and individuals associated.... And you've precluded the Medicare-for-all type option. Why shouldn't somebody conclude that you are doing the bidding of the financial industry?

And to Rockefeller's platitude, "Don't worry about the insurance companies. Believe me, we're going to take care of them," Husseini responds in a most un-Stephanopoulos manner:

You say not to worry about the insurance companies, but even though you obviously come from a very wealthy family, you've raised money for your campaigns--the No. 1 sector, according to Open Secrets, is finance and insurance. Why shouldn't it be seen that a lot of people in Congress are in effect doing the bidding of the insurance companies?

KURTZ: Mark Halperin, we learned this morning that Barack Obama in the month of September raised $150 million.... If a Republican had not taken public financing and had raised all that money, and the Democrat was struggling financially, wouldn't we see a lot of stories about one candidate essentially trying to buy the election?

HALPERIN: We would. We'd also see a lot of stories about his going back on his word saying that he would accept the public money and would reach out to Senator McCain to try to work out a deal. So I think this is a case of a clear, unambiguous double standard, and any reporter who doesn't ask themselves, why is that, why would it be different if it's a Republican, I think is doing themselves and our profession and our democracy a disservice.

KURTZ: I think that's an excellent point, and that's the point we're going to end on.

A bigger "disservice" to democracy and journalism would be misrepresenting reality, which Halperin and Kurtz are doing here. McCain is not "struggling financially." He has raised millions of dollars for hybrid "victory" funds that funnel large donations to the RNC and various state parties. Factoring in those donations, it is not at all clear that McCain is significantly behind in the fundraising race. What's more, had Obama accepted public financing, it would seem likely that the GOP would have a major financial advantage.

Even more bizarre is Halperin's contention that if a Republican had raised money the way Obama has, he would be pilloried by the media. The double standard argument makes little sense, because we did see a lot of misleading stories about Obama "going back on his word" when he declined to take public financing, and he was severely criticized by the pundits and editorialists; a "flip-flop of epic proportions," according to PBS liberal Mark Shields, and Washington Post columnist David Broder (6/26/08) wrote that Obama "was rightly criticized for rigging the system in his favor." Such criticisms continue to this day.

As for all the stories we would see about a Republican candidate trying to buy the election: In New York City in 2005, the billionaire Republican Mayor Mike Bloomberg outspent his opponent 8-to-1 in order to win re-election.  Did we see a lot of stories about Bloomberg buying the election?  No, we see the city's media moguls pushing to change the election rules so he can do it again.