I don’t often like to get into the media bias debate. I think it’s both incredibly silly and incredibly obvious. Of course reporters have biases. Reporters need biases. How else do you distinguish relevant facts from irrelevant ones? How else to decide what to report and what not to report?

“Objectivity” as it’s used in the context of journalism is a vacuous concept. Not every side to every argument is worth hearing. Not every argument makes sense and not everyone who argues is honest, capable, or even moderately intelligent. When reporting on Obama’s victory, for example, there’s no point or purpose in asking the KKK what it thinks. Their opinion is dumb and doesn’t count. Is that biased? You betcha. But it’s good bias.

The point is that some biases are better than others. I’d rather have journalists whose bias led them to be skeptical rather than gullible. I prefer bias in favor of science and fact rather than fear and emotion. As for political bias, I’d prefer a bias in favor of some actual understanding of economics and public choice theory–but that might be asking too much. And I’d much, much, prefer journalists who challenged conventional wisdom, rather than journalists who simply shilled for their favorite candidate.

Chris Matthews fails all of the above.

His job? Since I’m sure MSNBC would disapprove of him actually accepting money from the Obama administration, I think he’s probably more of a volunteer.