On one level, my head blew because this is such a cynical, flagrantly biased act that rejects any concept of ethical journalism. On another, it blew up in shame. With all the nauseating evidence I’ve discussed here pointing to a rotting American journalism that sees itself as the engine of partisan propaganda rather than the means to an informed public, I somehow didn’t think it was this bad. This is my own bias at work: I’m a sap. I want to believe that somewhere, buried deep in the mainstream media, there is integrity and the spark of respect for democracy.

Page was the FBI attorney engaged in an adulterous relationship with Mueller investigation team member Peter Strzok. Their text messages raised legitimate questions about the anti-Trump bias in the FBI and  among those handling the “collusion” matter.  In particular, the reference to the FBI investigation as “insurance” if Trump was elected in an exchange between the lovebirds in  August 2016 seemed to be a smoking gun.

Recently, Page’s name has surfaced  in  the Michael Flynn case. In newly released  texts between Page and  Strzok, who was significantly involved in the pursuit of Flynn, Page suggested that Flynn could be set up using the federal law that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that “it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in,”  reinforcing other evidence that there was a “get Flynn” mentality at the FBI. Thus Page’s conduct will be a live topic in the upcoming inquiries in Congress and the Justice Department surrounding the methods and motives of the FBI as it pursued Flynn and sought to undermine the Trump Administration. It is outrageous to have an analyst who will be analyzing events that involve herself…or once was considered so, when journalists paid attention to ethics.

Page sent other texts insulting candidate Trump and Republicans while praising Hillary Clintons. What positive does she bring to NBC’s and MSNBC’s political analysis when her bias is so obvious?

Well, the bias itself, right? Hiring Page shows NBC’s Trump-hating audience that the network is anti-President Trump, and that’s what they want to hear and see, anti-Trump opinions and analysis. Professor Turley writes of Page,

[S]he is personally involved in the ongoing stories and has shown intense and at times unhinged bias against Trump in communications with Strzok and others. She is the news story, or at least a significant part of it….The media appears intent on fulfilling the narrative of President Trump that it is overly biased and hostile in its analysis. Indeed, it now appears [to be] a marketing plan that has subsumed the journalistic mission.

Gee, what was your first clue, professor? (Turley’s addiction to diplomatic understatement drives me crazy sometimes.) He concludes, “With Page, NBC has crossed the Rubicon and left its objectivity scattered on the far bank.” With Page? Has Turley ever watched “Meet the Press” with Chuck Todd? I know he watches MSNBC: he refers to Rachel Maddow in his article about Page. How much more proof of bias does he need?

Fox News has long used “analysts” who have obvious Republican biases, notably Sarah Palin and Oliver North , but it has also been excoriated for doing so, and fairly. CNN disgraced itself, and was burned, by employing Donna Brazile while she was working for the Clinton campaign. Page, however, represents a new low, and I don’t see how it can get much lower, though, as I said, I’m a sap. One wag compared NBC using Page as an analyst while the Flynn and “collusion” investigations are being scrutinized to a network hiring G. Gordon Liddy as an analyst during the Watergate hearings.

All together now! “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!”