Some time ago, I received an e-mail forward that read something like this:

George Bush was recently on a boat with the Pope during a press conference. As they looked out over the deck, the Pope's traditionally white cap was blown off and landed some distance away on the water. The President said, "No problem," and promptly hopped over the rail, walked across the surface of the water and retrieved the hat for the Pontiff. The crowed was amazed. The next morning, splashed across the front page of the the New York Times was the headline: BUSH CAN'T SWIM.

Today, I received the following:

A biker walking through the zoo noticed a little girl grabbed by a ferocious lion, which was attempting to pull the child through the bars of his cage in order to make short work of her. The biker leaped to her aid, punching the lion in the nose and rescuing the little girl. A New York Times reporter on the scene promised to write up the story for front page coverage the following day. So, next morning, the biker checked to see if he'd make the headlines. It read: BIKER GANG MEMBER ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT, STEALS HIS LUNCH.

John McCain is winning his war with the Times.

I've long believed Republicans would generally poll 4% - 8% higher if the media (FOX news excepted, of course) were not so adamantly and sinisterly opposed to the GOP and conservative policies. From Dan Rather's meltdown to the nefarious timing of story releases, the network stations consciously and deliberately attempt to stymie Republicans and provide cover for Democrats.

Just before the first Bush presidential victory, the Times revealed a DUI arrest which it had been saving for just that occasion. Just before Bush's second victory, the Times splashed a year-old story about lost munitions across its front page. Good news for Republicans is dumped in the Friday edition (which no one reads), or overshadowed by non-political stories reserved for just that purpose. (President Bush took to carrying a copy of the book "BIAS," a scathing indictment of the media's liberalism, whenever he strolled past the media crews stationed outside the White House.)

John McCain is going to need to overcome his media handicap if he is to defeat his industry-favored opponent in November. And one way for McCain to counter this disadvantage is to discredit the Times' reputation, to make apparent to the American people the paper's bias against him. And, the New York Times couldn't have helped him more.

Were McCain to come out against the media without obvious and egregious cause, he could seem a whining conspiracy-theorist, attacking the messenger because he lacked the power to produce good news for himself. However, the ever-over-confident Times began its attack too soon and too clumsily. The salvo widely missed its mark and evoked a series of reprobations from sources outside the McCain campaign. Thus, the nominee was preserved from the mud-slinging while the message of media-prejudice has been widely heard.

Conservative outlets will now be piqued for the next example of bias, and should be prepared to introduce this element into the campaign as a central focus. If the Democratic candidate can be linked with a complicit media in an attempt to deceive and manipulate the American people, corrupt journalism could backfire to the disadvantage of both the media and the Democrats.