[mburbank]

You lost me. If we compare the fact that the press which knew who and for how long Bush senior had been comitting adultery and never refered to it to their coverage of Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski, we see liberal bias?

Suppose we concider the barely extant coverage of Ginrich's multiple adulteries.

The press follows all sorts of things. Power, favors, laziness, momentum, excitement, smut. But with the exception of publications which are speciffically about their political slant, of which there are more than few on both sides, I see no bias. Just baseness.

In adition, I think The Nation, The Progressive and Mother Jones wear their hearst on their sleeves. Newsmax pretends to be news and Fox says they're fair and balanced. The NYT rolled on their bellies for the adminstration during the Iraq war and haven't even retracted stories where they got used like old tissues by the administration.

I think it takes a budding paranoiac to see a bias in the media as a whole, liberal or conservative. We have a vast blanket of laziness punctuated about once a decade by someone who actually cares about investigative journalism. The only people who worry about a political bias in the press are folks who want to see themselves as victims, of which there are plenty. Do what a historian does. Read widely and where disparate sides agree it's probably a fact. You know, like the way everyone thinks Michael Powell at the FCC is a corrupt sack of crap, from the NRA to the League of Women Voters. Anyone who simply believes what they read is a sheep. Sheep have a tendency to get slaughtered.