Here is a solution, just report the facts. Period. Until then, I am not interested in anything you have to say, OK Matt? 

Ever wonder why conservative sites don't not have to grovel and beg like these idiots to get attention? 

well, as far as I can tell the arguments are such;

We conservatives argue that the STORIES are biased and the VIEWPOINT espoused in the stories are biased.  All we are looking for is a balanced non-partisan view of the issues.

Liberals argue that Republicans/Conservatives are wrong, corrupt and devious by nature and that NOT ENOUGH stories detailing that are reported.  

If you go to media matters or Fair.org, most of their issues revolve around the fact that Bob Shieffer actually said Bush should be given the benefit of the doubt on an issue until the media can prove he lied.

Liberals believe the opposite, that EVERY story on conservatives should question the motives and assume guilt.  While liberals intentions are always in the right place and should be given the benefit of the doubt.

As one liberal blogger once said, Conservatives and Liberals are both corrupt.  It's just that Conservatives align themselves with "scarier" corrupt people.  In other words, the corruption of the Democrats is "less dangerous" and isn't as harmful as that of the Republicans. 

"It’s one thing for an ideologue to cry bias over this story or
another, but it’s far more productive to offer a solution or an
alternative."

Well, well... Rupert Murdoch and FoxNews channel adopted that tactict and have been vilified and condemned in the main-stream media and especially in liberal haunts everywhere.

The bias in the MSM is a bit weighted. 90% toward the liberal viewpoint and 10% toward the conservative viewpoint. It's no wonder that FoxNews is kicking all their butts. They at least make an atempt at ballance.

Our beef about liberal bias involves the quantity, quality, timing, etc. of coverage about seemingly equal events.

If you get the chance, you might ask the "non-biased" liberal what they would consider to be an example of liberal bias.

"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"

This whole issue represents the flawed moral equivalence argument perfectly.  There is an inherent assumption here that both sides have their own merits which need to be weighed against each other, and that is incorrect reasoning.  It might be true if you had two sides presenting their own arguments in a fair forum, but that is not the case at all.  We have one side which spews endless invective that is unsupportable at best while the other side tries to use some sense of reason and logic.  How exactly does one counter the "Bush lied, people died" message that is presented daily by the left?  Modern liberals are living at the extreme of the political spectrum (which is why they think President Bush is a far right conservative) and it is patently unfair to juxtapose these extreme messages with those on the right that are not even half as extreme.

Until we push ourselves out of our media comfort zone, we risk continuing to argue past each other

Can't we just all get along???

As for comfort zones: Let's see, once one's done the recommended out-of-comfort-zone thing for a while then what? I do try reading "their" stuff from time to time but the only thing I see is that we can agree to disagree at the most. Problem is, they won't leave us alone.

And they're utterly bitter. Leaves a bad taste in your brain.

Did you notice how he gave us a whole laundry list of "from the left" censored stories and linked to them, 35 total ? Then he praised a left wing hit media for going after another left wing hit media for not publishing an expose on democrat Diane Feinstien.

 So there we have LINKED advertising for unknown and "unheard of" leftist viewpoint stories, then praise for another left media piece, and if you go read the "takedown of The Nation" you are forced to conclude the story on the democrat is untrue, and unsupportable because it's "speculation without facts" these shining left wing places like The Nation and Slate have integrity and standards.

 So, after not disagreeing with the lefty hit pieces and praising another lefty - even admitting they're lefty... and making certain you have a convenient link to click and suck it all up...

 He goes after a known and admitted rightie, but not a hard rightie, JG, and then totally disagrees with him on his story from the right. "Sure the media overreacted but that's not bias"

 I guess this Felling guy is a RETARD, and is like not at all self aware - and is so left he just can't help himself.

 I quite understand the intention of his piece - it's darkly linked to Dan Rather -and those "problems" that all caused, so he names a lefty or two, praises one, then attacks a righty and claims with cover, the "mainstream" media like CBS might have overreacted but it wasn't biased.

 His little screed about people on either side need to see the other is just his way of proclaiming his "own unbiased mind" that sees and views all, and therefore  "immunizes him from any possible bias" - and wishes those "other lessers" out there would get with the program.

 What a ****head and an idiot. MORON Felling.

I'm sure is he sees this he can whine I'm an extremist just look at the name calling... and totally ignore his own massive bias he will publicly pretend forever isn't there. 

Whatever, these people like M Felling are absolutely pathetic.