I do watch some Fox News but only to find out what the GOP's spin is on any particular issue.
Deception is their stock & trade.
Can you picture the press outlets in question attacking a president from their own side of the aisle for actions other than breaking with partisan orthodoxy?
Most "liberal" outlets pass this test... often in ways that go overboard in being too harsh against the Democratic president. For example, the Washington Post and New York Times both editorialized in favor of the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into the Whitewater allegations. That, of course, turned out to be a truly horrible idea. Not only had Clinton done absolutely nothing wrong in relation to Whitewater, but the special prosecutor used his post for a free-ranging witch hunt into all aspects of the president's and his friends' and family's lives, looking for any dirt he could leak to the press, ultimately leading to an impeachment over lying about a consensual blowjob.
So, can you picture the Wall Street Journal or Washington Times editorial pages calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into, say, Bush's insider trading in his days as a Texas oilman (the equivalent to allegations related to Clinton's old real estate investing)? I don't believe you think for even a moment that would ever happen. Although there were occasional peeps of criticism about Bush from the conservative press, it was invariably related to some departure of Bush from conservative orthodoxy (e.g., the Medicare prescription drug benefit), not related to some alleged nonpartisan corruption.
That's really just the tip of the iceberg. The WP and NYT regularly provide soap boxes to conservative voices, to use in thrashing Democratic presidents and promoting conservative policies. Ross Douthat, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Roger Cohen, Richard Cohen, Fred Hiatt, Marc Thiessen, and George Will are among the regular columnists to pollute the pages of those two "liberal" newspapers. All of them are either generally conservatives, or at least so rabidly, blindly pro-war that they were major figures in the push to start the disastrous war with Iraq based on the supposed presence of WMDs there. Can you picture the mirror image of that from the Washington Times, Weekly Standard, National Review, or Wall Street Journal editorial page? Can you picture them serving as the soap box for attacks on Bush or promoting liberal policies like socialized medicine and more progressive taxation? No way in Hell!
Now, let's look at TV -- specifically, "liberal" MSNBC and CNN. Three hours every weekday morning on MSNBC, the supposedly more liberal of those two networks, is controlled by Joe Scarborough, the right-wing "Republican Revolutionary" who served in Congress during Gingrich years, with a 95% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. CNN is arguably even worse -- their biggest personality is Wolf Blitzer, a mindless neoconservative, whose sole purpose in this world seems to be to help drum up wars and military strikes against Muslim nations. Although Anderson Cooper provides a decent counterpoint to that, in terms of liberal-leaning social coverage, there's also the Wall-Street-fellating Erin Burnett to deal with. She famously carried water for the big investment banks by doing hit pieces on Occupy Wall Street:
CNN?s Factcheck Failure on Occupy Wall Street ? FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
So, can you picture Fox News giving three hours every morning to a liberal Democratic former House member? Really picture that: Republican campaign operative Roger Ailes and arch-conservative Rupert Murdoch turning their network over for three hours, during prime breakfast viewing, to a Barney Frank, John Conyers, or Barbara Lee. Please! And can you picture them with their lead foreign policy segment host being a bizarro-world Wolf Blitzer: a stalwartly anti-war, pro-civil liberties talking head? Can you picture them covering Occupy Wall Street with the mirror image of Erin Burnett (someone who would ridicule people who work on Wall Street and inaccurately "fact check" them, the way Burnett did to the Occupy protesters)? Come on, you know that's inconceivable.
Even admittedly left-leaning media figures, like Jon Stewart, frequently and harshly bash the Obama administration -- and not just for failing to adhere to liberal orthodoxy:
Stewart can be faulted for this (since he essentially jumped on board some phony right-wing scandals), but certainly not based on overwhelming liberal bias on his part. Can you picture a right-wing "entertainer" like Rush Limbaugh doing this? Can you picture Limbaugh chiming in with the Democrats to criticize Bush for something that happened on his watch (e.g., the IRS challenging the NAACP's tax exemption)? The very notion is hysterical, and you know it.
So, if there is some "liberal media bias," it is a subtle and often self-regulating one, when it does appear -- a bias that often leads to destructive over-compensation. These are, at worst, regular people with political opinions, making some effort to hold themselves to disinterested or at least fair-minded standards. What they aren't is what you find in the conservative media: party operatives who almost never break with their preferred party's leadership, and on the rare occasions when they do, only do so in the interest of enforcing greater ideological conformity by punishing party members who violate partisan taboos. There's just no left-wing equivalent to the big right-wing media outlets: no reliable partisans for the Democratic Party.
try to picture conservative media outlets engaging in the equivalents of the "liberal" media behaviors I highlighted. Can you honestly picture it?
“Fox News made news partisan by pulling off one of the great frauds of all time.
Fox pretended to be a legitimate news operation when they have always been a tool of the Republican Party that was made by Republicans and for Republican viewers. “
“So all the retards are concentrated with FOX, as top post and Gallup explains, the normal humans , which are thousand times more, spread through the rest of TV channels”
“news source"- total lie, unless you consider "Pravda" the news source as well. And "spoon fed" are amcons , sheep flocking to their cult masters for more and more lies to stroke their sick minds inhabiting the alternate Universe.
But i already know you are not getting it, you are entrenched too deep and invested in commie -like cult up to the politburo heights and now to admit that for so many years your brains were ruthlessly screwed is very hard, very very hard”
I scoff at the rank hypocrisy...