Did you mean post 35? Because that post talks about democratic funding for the IRA.
I agree with you on the independent research. I don't don't know about your media (except for the BBC website), but at least in my area, the news is pretty much blatantly one-sided (I don't know how it is in other parts of the U.S apart from the nightly national news).
This was what I was referring to:
American sympathies, and funds, for the IRA dried up in a big hurry after 9/11, especially in their traditional strongholds of NYC and Boston. Seeing the writing on the wall, the Provisional IRA finally agreed to surrender its arms in October 2001 -- something it had resisted since the 1994 Good Friday accord.
Here is a good article about our media (I am in Baltimore, Md):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/taking_on_the_527_media.html
August 25, 2006
Taking on the '527 Media'
By Jed Babbin
Dear Mr. Mehlman:
---snip---
The second truth is that the media are more than just the Dems' think tank. In fact, some of the biggest media outlets are the source of thinly veiled attack ads aimed at your candidates just like the so-called "527 Groups," those huge soft-money peddlers supposedly independent of the candidates they support. Think of what George Soros could do if he had a global news network that could produce multi-million dollar attack ads every day, and then you'll know what some mainstream media outlets have become. Rightly or wrongly, given their history with CBS, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and lately, AP, some conservatives classify them among the worst offenders.
The "527 Media" -- and that's what you should be calling them -- are essentially political activists. They are in the campaign business nearly as much as they are in the business of reporting the news these days. They will be tossing October surprises at Republicans all day every day from September 5, when Katie Couric takes over at CBS, until the election returns are certified.