Not only that, but they get a pass on rewriting scripture to suit their own ends.

But Obama said the Rock was "a principal (sic) of brotherhood exemplified by the
church during Hurricane Katrina — but not the federal government"

By "Rock", Jesus did NOT mean a "principle of brotherhood." He meant a house built on God Himself, His laws and His Word.

Sorry, TM, our nation was built on laws, not on Jesus, although our Christian roots had a lot to do with the laws the founders wrote. The PEOPLE of the nation, individually and in church and civic groups, because of their religious roots and Christian upbringing, opened their hearts and their wallets for the people of New Orleans.

Not sure what I said here to deserve your scorn, though.

That aside, of course MM (and that insidious George Soros!) has a different angle, and you have a predictible view to their angle.  But they specifically address the question of favorable vs. unfavorable mentions: "Coverage of religion not only overrepresents some voices and underrepresents others, it does so in a way that is consistently advantageous to conservatives."  If you REALLY disagree on their facts and have another study that counters their conclusion, why don't you put it up?  It would be relevant and I'd honestly love to see it. 

BTW, Nick Gillespie at Reasononline happened to mention this study last May, http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/120436.html:

"after a quick read of the study, it doesn't seem to control for the size of the various groups or audiences delivered by various preacher men. So if the Family Research Council's unfortunately named Tony Perkins has a bigger mailing list, he's more likely to get quoted than Sojourners' Jim Wallis (that both are basically tools for reasons that have nothing to do with God is arguably a more interesting question than how often they befoul the mediascape).

"Read the whole report, which has lots of fun charts--and works overtime to explain why Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (both of whom had far more citations than anybody else mentioned in the study) don't really count as religious figures--here."

I don't have a particular axe to grind here, but I do find your post somewhat ironic, given the use that "conservatives" have made of religion in politics over the past decade.  I suppose you would agree with my view that Sharpton is a self-seeking blowhard, but like anyone else, am happy to cherrypick and say that I am impressed by Pat Robertson's public "conversion" (ass he put it) on climate change:  

"We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels," he said. "It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air." "If we are contributing to the destruction of this planet, we need to do something about it".  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51379

Allow me to use this opportunity to make a few other points:

- you say that "As scared as secular liberals are of the nefarious "religious right," you never hear them complain when Democrats use religion to increase their vote count" - and link to a CNN news report.  Have you established somewhere that CNN (or the press in general) is an official or unofficial mouthpiece of secular liberals, rather than a news organization? And since we're theyre, just who owns and controls the MSM anyway?

- My gut reaction is that your conclusion is wrong, and that secular liberals are not happy about the use of religion for political purposes, even by Democrats.  I am sure some are complaining, somewhere.  Isn't that what libs do?  But rather than talking only about the consistency of those secular liberals, do you care to clarify your own view?  Are you suggesting that what is sauce for the Republican party should NOT be sauce for the Dems? Is that what this is about, protecting voting turf?

- If you really are serious about imbalance though, I am curious if besides a simple complaint you have any positive suggestions for the media going forward:  should they equally criticize any politician who tries to use religion for a political purpose, or equally ignore all those cases?  And show there be some federal watchdog set up to police this even-handedness?

- Finally, since someone brought up the finding of MM, a fact that you indicate should not be ignored (I would agree) - isn't it fair also to question the funding of Newbusters?  I mean, just who's paying you guys to push the angles that YOU do?

Sincerely,

Tom

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
Richard Feynman

Do you really think that every time (or even most times) the MSM quotes or mentions conservative religious leaders, they immediately slam them in the same "news" item?  To do so would be too apparent, and would undermine any pretense that they are reporting news - and besides, if this were the case, then Newsbusters would have an easy demonstrated, shut-and-closed case.  The fact that they don't make what would be their strongest argument shows that it's not true

There might be secular/lib bloggers that try to slam every mention of a conservative religious leader, but their NOT the MSM and couldn't possibly keep up with all of the mentions anyway.

TT

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."

~

I'd say it's a combination of a few things:

1. The socialist/liberal movement, especially in this country, has its roots in religious traditions. All of the earliest socialists here were motivated by religion to believe that way.
2. Since liberals in general are less religious than conservatives, some left-wing religionists think that if they can make their sermons "relevant" i.e. more liberal, that will at least keep a few seats in the pews.
3. Few people are theologically liberal and politically conservative. That's changing over time but most of the old theological liberals are down-the-line Democrats.