The mainstream media loves to tell bloggers that the MSM is fact checked, reliable, lacking the rabid looniness of the online horde, and credible. Whether you are of the left or the right, the next time anyone tells you the media has greater credibility than bloggers, point them to Nancy Grace, media whore.

For the last year, between driving mothers of kidnapped children to commit suicide and keeping us up to date on the latest developments in the Anna Nicole Smith case, this fellow alumnus of Mercer University who now sadly sits on the Board of Trustees of my beloved University, has done her best to indict three innocent young men in North Carolina and start a race war just for kicks.

When blogs do what Nancy Grace has done, the mainstream media piles on, ridicules, condemns, and demands correction. So do other bloggers. When Nancy Grace does it . . . . crickets.

Let’s go below the fold and discuss today’s Media Whore.

You know what, Kevin? I`m so glad they didn`t miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape! . . . . Let`s go out to Dave Foley, defense attorney. Don`t move, Kevin Miller! David Foley, if they`re innocent, why not cooperate? Why stall? Why did they have to have a court order for 46 or 47 lacrosse members to give DNA? It`s very simple. You take something that looks like a Q-tip. You swab the inside of your mouth. It`s nothing more than like a doctor looking for a sore throat. Why? Why wouldn`t they give their DNA?

Nancy Grace on March 31, 2006.

DNA test results pending at this moment will make or break not only the team but the state`s case. Did members of the lacrosse team beat, choke and rape a student turned stripper, refusing to allow her to leave? Tonight, we are taking your calls. . . .

I guess I`ve prosecuted so many rape cases and represented so many sex assault victims, white, black, Asian, rich, poor, educated, non- educated, I`ve seen so many lady victims that I think of it as crimes on women. I have not been factoring in the race element to this.

But you`re right; I`m not arguing with you.

Nancy Grace on April 5, 2006.

So possibly, you know, Betty`s got a good point. The 46 that have given the DNA, the perp may actually not be on the lacrosse team. OK. But you know what? I know that there are witnesses that are ultimately going to come forward and name the three men in the bathroom with this girl. So Clark Goldband, what are the stats?

Nancy Grace on April 6, 2006.

But uh-oh, something happened. There was no DNA for Nancy to use. Did that matter? No.

GRACE: Does the negative test result show there was no rape? Does it show that condoms were used? Would this woman have made up the entire scenario, be found dazed and confused in a Kroeger parking lot, have her nails torn off, have bruises around her neck, have vaginal trauma? Did she make the whole thing up? Where are the answers?

Straight out to Kevin Miller, reporter from WPTF radio. Kevin Miller, let me get this straight. Is it correct that there`s no DNA match to the lacrosse players, or there`s no DNA period?

KEVIN MILLER, WPTF RADIO: No DNA period, according to defense attorneys today, where they held their impromptu newser about two hours ago, Nancy.

GRACE: OK, question. What about the fingernails that were broken off on the bathroom floor?

MILLER: According defense attorney Joe Cheshire, no DNA there, no DNA of the accuser in the bathroom.

GRACE: OK, big and crucial question to forensic scientist Dr. Kobilinsky. Koby (ph), important. If condoms were used, would there have to be evidence of latex?

Nancy Grace on April 10, 2006.

GRACE: Mayor, maybe I`m out of style, but as I recall prosecuting rape cases, a lady comes in, she has the rape kit done. There`s sign of vaginal trauma. She`s disheveled. She makes an outcry. The facts here are allegedly that she has bruises about the face and the throat, that her fingernails had been torn off, that she leaves behind her pocketbook, her cell phone and her money, including one shoe.

Well, typically, you go make an arrest, especially when you have an eyewitness identification. Then, before trial, you get your DNA results. What`s the hold — up, Mayor? Does that concern you, that an arrest has not been made?

Arrest them, dammit!, says Nancy on April 11, 2006, despite there being no DNA evidence.

Who cares about DNA evidence though. Clearly these bastards are guilty because they did not show up in court and pound their fists screaming about the injustice.

GRACE: To Doug Burns. What is the advantage of waiving the court appearance?

DOUG BURNS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, obviously, it`s a media circus, Nancy, so what`s the point? At an arraignment, you of all people know better than anybody, you go in, you waive a reading of the accusatory instrument, you plead not guilty, and then you have some arrangement with the prosecutors respecting bail. So there`s really no magic to an arraignment, so because of the fanfare, they waived it.

GRACE: Well, one waived and one didn`t. Do you agree or disagree, Nicole Deborde?

NICOLE DEBORDE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, it really just depends what the attorney wants to know. I mean, it could be that the attorney for the other person who did not waive arraignment felt that there was some additional information he could glean by actually appearing in court and having the prosecution say out loud what it is they were thinking, say out loud what is it…

GRACE: You know what? I`ve got to disagree with the two of you. You know why? If I were charged with a vicious attack on another person like this, you better bet I would show my face in court and say, Not guilty. Bring it on!

BURNS: Well, we can argue everything both ways, so you`re right, in a sense. You can argue it both ways.

DEBORDE: And certainly, I mean, I think it goes without saying that these people are saying, Absolutely, we`re innocent. We are not guilty. And I don`t think anybody that questions what their position is, at this point.

GRACE: Long story short, I`m talking about strategy, Nicole — strategy, strategy, strategy. And the reality is — and I know the two of you, if one of you had been charged with a heinous crime like this…

BURNS: Right.

GRACE: … taking advantage of a defenseless lady, all right — I don`t care if she`s a stripper, I don`t care if she`s Mother Teresa! I would be in there screaming, Not guilty. I want a speedy trial. I want to go trial right now! Put 12 in the box. I`ll take the first 12. I did not do this thing. You better bet!

Nancy Grace on April 18, 2006.

And this went on and on and on and on throughout 2006 and into 2007.

At the end of the day, we know that not only were the three students from Duke victims of an out of control prosecutor they were, multisyllable word here Nancy, innocent, according to North Carolina’s Attorney General.

What did Nancy Grace have about this outcome that defied her narrative? [insert crickets chirping] Nothing. Not a damn thing. Not one word.

In fact, the night after the Attorney General’s dramatic press conference, Nancy wouldn’t even appear on TV. She had a guest host fill in for her. In fact, if you go through the transcripts of the Duke case, every time the case went contrary to Nancy’s narrative of guilt, she had a guest host fill in for her.

Had that happened here, the media would write us off as would other bloggers. But this is CNN. Nancy continues her shtick. How many more mothers of kidnapped chlldren will commit suicide before CNN ends Nancy’s reign of whorer.