There's nothing in that article about Morrell deferring to the State Department on the issue. It only says Morrell did not want to include the 5 lines and State Department also didn't want the warnings included. 

Excerpt: "It remained unclear why Mr. Morrell objected to the inclusion of the warnings and whether his objections or the State Department’s played the dominant role in having them removed."

Where did I say "lie"?

Being dishonest is not the same as being a liar. In this context, dishonest refers to intellectual dishonesty as in what you are engaining in when trying to say I called anyone a liar.

Well, I'm connecting the dots here. Where is any indication that the CIA didn't want to include the information about al-Qaeda because they were unsure, as you previously said? The only objections I'm seeing here were State's.

Like the article says Morrell objected. It doesn't say why he did that. I hadn't read the part about Patraeus before you posted the link so I only knew about Morrell objecting as deputy director and that was the CIA objection I was talking about before. But there's no information on why he objected so saying he was just following the State Department would be jumping to conclusions. 

Which I would have chalked up to a figure of speech, an analogy that it's similar to a lie that is told often enough that it is eventually believed, except you identified the origin of the idea of a liberal media as a Republican strategy. Which would make it a literal and willful lie. And you can't have a lie without a liar, after all. So everyone who claims that the media is on balance pro-Democrat is either a liar or a dupe.

From what i can tell, they do so in very specific cases though... and it does make a decent amount of sense.

For example.  If democrats are citing a think tank study as to why we need the stimulus... and republicans cite a different study as to why it's a bad idea.

If a media network is refrencing only one of those studies... that's certaintly an issue.  It's highly unlikely the opposite would ever be true.  (Fox News only refrencing a Democratic Think tank study) etc.

Again, i'd argue that it's not the polarizing ends where the problem lies, but in the middle.  Since it's not measuring how they treat it when they measure both think tanks.

So Rachael Maddow and O'Reily get caught up... while Chris Matthews and... I can't really think of a biased but reasonably so republican (Joe Scarbourgh kinda sorta?)... don't get caught up.

At worst, the best critcism i'd say the study had is that it mostly just focused on the worst offenders.

Either way, I'd say it's far superior to the Gentzkow and Shapiro study, which is the only like study I can think of.

Where there they didn't really focus on anything other then specifically what the topic was.  So "Tons of people are dieing because of Bush's dumbass refusal to use stem cells"  would count as a republican story.

(Which intrestingly showed MORE of a liberal bias when he ran it... though I suppose not surprisng since the original Shapiro/Gent work showed that in a perfectly nuetral situation, newspapers would generally report slightly left of what was most profitable.)

Admittedly, I am making an assumption that if he was deferring to State on the part about the warnings then he was also conceding any mention of al-Qaeda. It seems a reasonable assumption, though, when State had the only concerns we've seen expressed about mentioning al-Qaeda. Where did you see that the CIA was unsure about terrorist involvement? It doesn't sound like that was at all the case.

Aha, I would go into more detail here, but from what I've seen of your posts before I am pretty sure you're smart enough to already know how shaky this line of reasoning is so I'll just leave it at that.

Yes, of course. There I go being dishonest again.

Connecting the dots like you did based on Morrell deciding to strike the lines about Al Qaeda out, assuming that they were unsure :)