Here's another question, who were the whistleblowers in these cases?

Not that this is going anywhere, but the liberal media bias thing is a huge red herring that conservastives would do well to reject as soon as possible. They won't and they will cling onto the liberal media monster to explain away everything under the sun.

In reality, there is no liberal media bias. It's true that more jourtnalists identify as liberals then conservatives, and this is where this ongoing myth always goes to the well. It's based on statments like "Their political views will subconciously slant coverage" to more outright claim of a grand liberal agenda to mislead the public.

Instead of going by this kind of meta information, look up the actual research that is done on the subject and one sees that the coverage is almost completely even. There is nothing in the data of actual coverage that shows any significant liberal bias in US media. It just isn't there.

So where does the myth come from? The liberal bias myth is itself an example of bias, in this case confirmation bias. It's a theory many people want to believe, so they will give much more weight to information that supports the theory then information that denies it. An example of this is on display in the quoted post where an article from the Media Research Center is presented as some sort of credible proof for a liberal media bias.

LOL, what a gigantic pile of horseshit.

OF course there isn't a liberal bias on stories like "dog saves man from burning building"

It's political articles that show the bias.

Some people are so devoted to their own ignorance and/or are completely inept.

I take it you haven't been bothered to review the research? The findings are based on studying political reporting only.

That said, I agree with your last statement.

Actually... the research that's done on the subject often shows the same thing.  At least when looking at the content, rather then how much content exists.  For example... all the news networks are reporting about Benghazi... which would count under most studies as a "Conservative news story."   Though, is it when the reporters and guests all talk about how it's a non issue?

It's the same thing as stories about women in the Media... the actual numbers are fairly favorable... the content however?  Generally sort of dismissive and riddled with code words.

Most media will reach the center... but it's worth noting... that the actual media center is left of the actual center of peoples beliefs.

I mean, a decent example i'd say is gay rights.  I've supported gay rights longer then most people have... and it isn't hard to see that gay rights have gotten MUCH better media coverage over the years then the number of people who supported gay marriage would of suggested.  Why?  The meida is generally supportive of gay rights.   Therefore reports about "Gay's ruining morality" and other such bullshit only existed on fringe rightwing networks.... even when that was what the majority of Americans believed.   While things about people being discriminating against gays was often talked about... even when it was the law of the land... (and the popular law of the land.)

Outside of stories about how it's suddenly way more popular.  I'd argue that gay marriage coverage hasn't changed.  Which, I support gay marriage and seeing more conservative coverage of it would of made me want to bash myself in the head with a brick, but i'm not so myopic to pretend the cause in particular i supported got an advantage as far as how the media treated it.

Another example is abortion rights.  Most people are for abortion rights... but also for stricter limits on abortion.  News generally slants towards full choice (as most news reporters do) and a few right wing people go the whole "Pro Life" route.  Nobody argues or reports  for the middle ground most people wants.

Also, as for the Media Research Center.  It was simply a good summary of a bunch of research that does exist.

I didn't see you post any research supporting your argument, just a gigantic pile of nonsensical suppositions, which were easily rebutted by offering a one sentence counter-point. 

Do you have anything? Let me guess, no? All the studies about it are bullshit and you're right because your credentials are? Smoking marijuana? YouTube university? What?

You would have done well to abandon such a ridiculous argument.

The republicans still have not come to terms with the fact they lost the election... and the one before it.
It rarely happens, but occasionally a president is so bad that he/she (lol) damages the entire brand of the party...
George Bush is that president...
The right wing are doing what they do best... complaining about everything and offering nothing in a bi-partisan
manner to solve the problems that they proclaim to care so much about...
Bill Clinton was almost impeached for an affair...
Bush illegally censored the internet under the name of freedom and nobody blinked....
The funny thing is that right wingers believe that they lost because Rommney wasnt far enough to the right...
Please!!!!! And as for the tea party.... Well let's not go there...
Do any of you republicans have the slightest notion of how the world works?
Do you even have a passport?

Or to put it another way. The thought that one can be completely free of our subconscious effecting how we perceive and act on stories based on our overt beliefs is more or less the exact opposite of what everything the social sciences tell us about sexism, racism, and why so many many more isms exist and continue to exist through our programming culture.

To deny it's the same mechanic in media is to basically to disavow the very premise that people who are of liberal minds socially should internalize.

If that is the case, hopefully US people will stop from voting for him.....again.

If you care to look outside the liberal media bias echo chamber you can easily find many studies that shows no real bias, slight conservative bias or slight liberal bias. As one would imagine, when looking at metastudies, the various bias outlets balance each other out and there is virtually no net bias in overall media. This is not to say that there are not liberal leaning and conservative leaning news outlets, but the notion that there is a clear liberal slant in media as a whole is not supported by facts.

Since you obviously will ask again. Here's one exapmple of a study of coverage of the 2012 presidential campaign and who got more positive and negative mention in the news media:

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/cr

So, no one had less favorable coverage than Obama, does that mean the media has a conservative bias? No, it only shows that in 2012 Obama got a lot of negative coverage. In reality, media has a much stronger finacial bias than political bias, they will report to fit the 'general mood' of their consumers.