Not really. I mean, you made the assertion that, "The way I see the US media, the real bias is towards making money and they will go where they feel they get the most clicks for their buck." That seems patently obvious, at least to me, but did you do pore over academic studies of the issue before coming to that conclusion or just arrive there based on your own observation? If the latter, that doesn't make you dishonest.

The same holds true for claims of political bias. Bias is an incredibly difficult thing to quantify, or even define. And, of course, most people who set out to study media bias in the first place aren't exactly doing so with a disinterested eye. They want to find what they want to find, and usually do. You've admitted all of this already, so it would be nice if you could stop calling everyone who disagrees with you either a liar (since this may be their honest perception of things) or the intellectual equivalent of a creationist (as the science of measuring bias is not even in the same ballpark as hard evolutionary science).

I feel like you didn't actually read the post I wrote... as you actually adressed hardly anything relating to it.

Outside which... when you do look at research talking about the actual issues... the research does seem to all point into certain way.

To claim that to hold on to the liberal bias rejects what science done on the matter says is to not really understand science.   Or at least not social science.  Would you perhaps have studied in a Physical Science field? 

What you are simply doing is hiding behind a nebulous meta study to ignore actually discussing what makes a good study on bias... and studying specific research studies... and their faults. Which is the heart of social science. 

I state that issue based studies are the best... for specific reasons... and you have presented no arguements for why that isn't the case... but have instead said... "When you add a whole bunch of the inferior stuff too, it shows there is no bias."

You aren't appealing to science... your appealing to authority... without actually discussing the various methods of the science, or showing an understanding of it.

Well, that and what Badgenome said.

Alright three headed dragon, let's see what you're really made of.

1. Benghazi- There is no scandal. The intelligence at first said it might be linked to protests over the anti muslim Youtube video which turned out to be wrong. Obama called it a terrorist attack the day after the attack but Republicans keep forgetting to mention this even though it's on video.

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

So many hearings to repeat the same information over and over. Robert Gates (former secretary of State, Republican appointed under Bush) already said help could not have come in the form of fighter jets flying over or special ops sent in right away.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/12/robert-gates-benghazi_n_3262532.html

Excerpts: "We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East -- despite all the turmoil that's going on, with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so getting somebody there in a timely way -- would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

"And frankly, I've heard, 'Well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over and try and scare 'em with the noise or something?' Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft -- over Benghazi under those circumstances," he said.

"And with respect to -- sending in special forces or a small group of people to try and provide help, based on everything I have read, people really didn't know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously," Gates added. "And to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous."

2. AP- The justice department looked into leaks about counter terrorism operations. They used legal methods including a warrant from a judge to check phone records. At no point was there wiretapping or listening in on conversations. 

This investigation was asked for by Republicans.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/republican-senators-flip-flop-on-leak-investigatio

Excerpt: "Senator Lindsey Graham and 30 other Republican senators signed a letter today calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate what they dubbed an “avalanche” of leaks from the White House."

In fact they were hinting that Obama was behind the leaks to appear strong against terrorism. Then they turned around and attacked the justice department for investigating the leaks legally. 

The main issue here is the conflict between press trying to get secret information and governments trying to keep things confidential which has been the case throughout history between press and government. You can criticize the strength in which the administration has tried to pursue leaks, but the Republicans are the last party that has the right to do it when they asked for this in the first place. The one issue that might be a problem is that they did not inform the AP of the investigation first. 

3. IRS scandal- The head of the IRS during the scandal was a Bush appointee, Douglas Shulman. The president can not give direct orders to the IRS ever since the days of the nixon scandals and the enemy list. So you're telling me the IRS chief appointed by Bush was doing this for Obama? Don't think so. This was done by low level people and the acting head of the IRS, Steve Miller just resigned because he did not do a good job investigating what happened. 

Secondly, why are there partisan political non-profit organizations that have tax exempt status at all? You're going to tell me a group that has the name Tea Party in it is not a partisan operation?

The people at the IRS that did this are going to get the boot now anyway, but pretending like Obama whispered into the ears of the Bush IRS chief to hunt down conservative groups is laughable. By the way none of the conservative groups were refused tax exempt status.

So that's one fake scandal (Benghazi, there were 60 attacks against American missions under Bush and not one was blamed on Bush at the time), one scandal which was a continuation of the conflict between state secrets and a free media with the absence of informing the AP of the investigation (by the way, the Bush administration wiretapped anyone they wanted without a judge's authorization) and the third one was wrongdoing by IRS employees with no connection with higher ups in the administration so far. 

If this administration represents Chicago style politics, what style was the Bush administration? Bush administartion wiretapped anyone they wanted, but checking AP phone records legally is a bigger scandal? Dozens of attacks on US missions under Bush, but 3 under Obama. Which sounds worse? 

As for if this will end the second term. The do nothing Republican house hasn't let much of anything happen since their election in 2010 anyway. Before any of these stories broke, the Republicans were not cooperating with the administration on almost anything and now they have more excuses not to, at least until the mid-term elections (probably beyond till 2016). So congratulations America, the Do Nothing Congress is here to stay. 37th vote to repeal Obamacare yesterday and here's to 37 more so all the tea party crazies that join in the next election can also go on record as voting against Obamacare. 

We just had an election where Obama won by more than 5 million votes, but he will be prevented from doing much of anything. However we will have a Republican house till 2020 because of gerrymandering even if Democrats win the 2016 election again. Of course we all remember the huge scandal of the Iraq War when we had many people resigning and being arrested after taking the country to war on false pretenses, right? 

Oh and in more on topic news....

Obama has forced the head of the IRS to resign.

Despite the fact that he wasn't the head of the IRS when this happened.

Guess he really wants to hold on to Holder.

The research as it's been pointed out shows that media is biased towards the current mood of the consumers. So yes, a bias towards appealing to as many people as possible thus a bias towards making money. I didn't pore over this research, but the conclusion is from the same research that I've seen on the lack of/exsistence of liberal bias.

Still, end of the day is that claiming widespread liberal bias is not supported by any real findings. There is no basis for claiming it as a fact.

I never called anyone a liar.

I agree that the parallell to creationists is weak at best.

Seems strange to talk about the media being biased towards liberalism when talk radio is dominated by the right wing and there's a cable news channel that is literally funding the tea party.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erbe/2010/04/16/is-fox-news-raising-money-for-the-tea-party-movement

Not true. He used the term "act of terror", yes, but he never specified that he was talking about Benghazi. Given the administration's attempt to misdirect people into thinking it was an act of mob violence rather than a coordinated terrorist attack, it's highly unlikely that he was. Look at those dates. He was probably referring to 9/11 as it was near the anniversary. That fits better with the context of what he was saying, anyway. Of course an attack on a consulate somewhere isn't going to make America go all police state, but something like 9/11 could (and did).

Anyway, are you aware of the fact that about an hour ago they just released emails of the talking points being put together? al-Qaeda was in, then it was removed. They were well aware that this wasn't a protest that got out of hand.

To quote Mike Hiltzik of the LA Times: "Here are the genuine scandals in this affair: Political organizations are being allowed to masquerade as charities to avoid taxes and keep their donors secret, and the IRS has allowed them to do this for years."

Oh. Maybe that was just the impression I got when you constantly use the words "lie" and "dishonest".

The Benghazi attack happened on 9/11.