Though there have long been concerns about liberal bias in the media, 2008 was the year the referees took off their striped shirts and donned a team’s jersey.

So wrote former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie in his National Review piece castigating what has become of journalism in our country. 

To be sure, the former counselor to George W. Bush, having watched his boss for years get torn to shreds by a media Gillespie claimed "loathed the president," has a lot of opinions concerning liberal bias.

In this article, they marvelously came out:

Over the past few months, a steady stream of journalists from mainstream-media outlets - at least eight, led by Time Washington-bureau chief Jay Carney - have abandoned journalism for positions in the Obama administration or with congressional Democrats. Fortunately for them, the difficult transition from objective reporting to ardent advocacy of a party's agenda was made easier by the head start they got in last year's campaign. Though there have long been concerns about liberal bias in the media, 2008 was the year the referees took off their striped shirts and donned a team's jersey.

Some say it's a shift forced by the rapidly changing business model of journalism; others say longstanding liberal bias has simply become more apparent in a media culture that demands quick and constant content. But there are very few who deny that a marked change occurred. In a December dispute with the New York Times over an incredibly biased story on the root causes of the housing crisis (Guess what? It was all Bush's fault!), I put it this way: "I don't know if the New York Times's shoddy reporting is a result of its junk-bond status, or if the New York Times's junk-bond status is a result of its shoddy reporting." 

After telling his history in politics, Gillespie wrote quite candidly about the press:

When I joined the White House in June 2007, I was still naïvely hopeful that we could get an honest hearing from the MSM. It did not take long for the scales to fall from my eyes. The national press corps loathed the president — not personally, I don’t think, but politically. Their reporting dripped with disdain, and their stories were frequently riddled with negative adverbs and adjectives. On issues like the Iraq War, the environment, and life, there was often little distinction between our treatment in liberal blogs and our treatment in major daily newspapers.  [...]

Today, newspapers are folding, Washington bureaus being shuttered. And as the national media have become smaller, they have become even more homogeneous — and that makes it easier for them to indulge their cultural biases and be swayed by liberal blogs.

Gillespie offered some suggestions:

First, when a White House press secretary presumes to be the assignment editor for the national news media, be prepared to respond to reporters following their marching orders.

Second, understand that the media will play the role of attack dog for Democrats, but not for Republicans. The media will stay on a negative story for days and continue pressing for answers when it involves a Republican. But, as a rule, when a story arises that is damaging to Democrats, the media will report or repeat it only if Republicans make it an issue, in which case they’ll frame the story as a Republican “attack.” Though most Republican candidates would rather not “wield the knife” themselves, these stories don’t get much attention unless they do. (Later, of course, the media go after the Republican for going negative.)

In 2006 the Left perfected the cycle: A blog posts an attack on a Republican candidate one day, the local daily paper runs a story two days later based on the blog account, and two days after that, a national Democratic campaign committee launches a “ripped from the headlines” attack ad citing the dailies. No Republican should be caught off-guard by this phenomenon again. 

His conclusion:

At present, Democrats use the media to their distinct advantage: The mainstream press favors them, and they are better than Republicans at using alternative outlets. It was Barack Obama, after all, who proved that a candidate has the ability to disseminate facts and a message to millions of voters directly. Republicans need to turn this tide, and fast. 

Sounds much like what I wrote a few weeks ago:

[T]he political war in America is indeed being fought in the media. Since their devastating loss in 2004 liberals have been doing a far better job waging this war than conservatives.

Those on the right should stop crying foul over what Team Obama is wisely doing to control the message and instead learn to play the game better.

As such, I couldn't agree more.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.