Last night, the top political story in the news should have been that a Democratic Congressman was caught accepting bribes and storing the money in his freezer. Instead -- apparently to distract from this -- some of the news outlets ran a story that a prominent Republican was being investigated for corruption. The only problem: the story about the Republican was apparently fabricated.

I was talking on the phone to the girlfriend, and mentioned the story I'd heard that Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert was under investigation by Justice. I expressed the view that this was very good, if, in fact, he was guilty, and that I was just as eager to see Republicans convicted as Democrats, if not possibly even more so. And the story looked reliable: After all, news outlets (example, and a copy on Instapundit, in case they alter it) were saying "Federal officials" were the source of this story.

Really? Which ones?

It turns out that real Justice officials went on record as denying the story, saying there was no such investigation against Hastert. So who are these unnamed, anonymous "officials" the news media sourced? Are there a set of secret Justice officials only the reporters know about?

ABC initially said it was standing by the story. Now, ABC does not seem to be standing by the story. A talking head on the radio this morning said she has a friend within ABC, who works fairly high up in the food chain, who said that at the time evening news story ran, the reporters were openly laughing about the story not being true: sounded to me like a kind of sticking-it-to-the-Republicans kind of thing.

I'm conservative, but I try not to be partisan. I favor Republicans at the moment -- oh-so-slightly this month -- because their policies generally more closely align with mine. But I'm just as eager to see a corrupt Republican nailed as a corrupt Democrat. (Perhaps more so, since I want to vote for honest people who support my policies, and a good housecleaning always helps.)

That being said, I'm shocked and angered at being duped -- yet again -- by the media. Which is worse, taking a bribe in secret, or openly smearing a prominent figure who has apparently done nothing wrong? Especially if done to apparently hide real corruption within one's own party?

And this brings me to my final point, one about reactions.

When Rep. Cunningham -- a Republican -- was caught with his hands in the till, (a) he cried and confessed and admitted wrongdoing, and (b) as in the case of Trent Lott, Republican leaders loudly condemned his actions and called for him to step down, which he did. (c) And when I though Hastert was guilty, I, as a potential supporter or political bedfellow, also approved of the prosecution.

Now here's what I'm seeing among Democratic leaders and prominent supporters, when faced with similar issues: (a) Rather than confess and repent -- good heavens, they have him accepting the bribes on tape -- Jefferson is apparently shameless, and has so far refused to admit any wrongdoing whatsoever. (b) More troubling still, I've heard NO condemnations of Jefferson among the leadership. In fact, even a few old-school journalists have noticed the silence. Nobody from his party is calling for this man to step from office, and he apparently has no plans to do so. (c) Apparently, rather than focus equally or more by wrongdoing in "their" party, some supporters (ABC reporters) want to rush to the aid of the dishonest among "their" party -- with more dishonesty!

This should not be a partisan issue. I want to see two political parties both equally committed to truth, whatever our political or policy differences. And I've always believed there were corrupt and good people among both parties. But it still shocks me to see the Democratic leadership's inability to condemn corruption when it happens on "their team" -- as if team membership is more important than ethics -- and the fact that liberal supporters in the media would actually fabricate a story in order to help the group they view as "their team."

Update: Well, apparently, they did alter the text of that article, and not admit the redaction, as the journalistic tradition used to dictate:

I want to know why the content of this article changed. Earlier today, the article at this URL was completely different text. It explicitly stated that the Speaker was under investigation. Now it has been changed to say he was "involved" in the investigation which could mean he is assisting.

Weasels.

Update 2: More analysis over at The Truth Laid Bear.