I did, but now I don't!

Say what you like about the inanities of the Internet (and I have railed against it!) it has nevertheless given a voice to many who otherwise would have been rendered mute by the extreme bias currently exhibited by a new generation of main-stream-media journalists.
What Andrew Bolt and his cohorts have done,(whether you like them or not) and done remarkable efficiently, is to highlight the almost unbelievable hypocrisy exhibited by so many highly published commentators. It appears that the post modern aversion to 'truth' and the subsequent approval given to an 'honest' adoption of bias has indoctrinated a new generation of journalists (who are 'trained' in the post modern social laboratories of today, i.e.the university) into acting as propagandists rather than reporting mere 'facts' which they hold to be ideologically malleable.
Consider how this 'reporter of the facts' changes her opinion when faced with what is considered the epitome of political correctness:

In 1997, columnist Jill Singer argues for the display of Piss Christ:

We ... need to understand the value of artistic freedom.

In 2006, columnist Jill Singer argues against the display of Prophet toons:

Who wants a totally uncensored media run by those devoid of judgment, taste or social responsibility?

UPDATE. Mark Steyn:

In the Western world “artists” “provoke” with the same numbing regularity as young Muslim men light up other countries’ flags. When Tony-winning author Terence McNally writes a Broadway play in which Jesus has gay sex with Judas, the New York Times and Co. rush to garland him with praise for how “brave” and “challenging” he is. The rule for “brave” “transgressive” “artists” is a simple one: If you’re going to be provocative, it’s best to do it with people who can’t be provoked.

Such are the vagaries within the art world and the main-stream-media.