Of course Moyers, after criticizing Brian Williams, had to make up for it by "showing" how they actually bend over backward to be fair.

You know, to keep his standing with the Central Committee.

They may offer more ink and airtime to the extreme right than to the
extreme left. They may give equal time to both sides of an arguments
even when the preponderance of factual evidence greatly favors one side
over the other.  -Gladstone

I think that is what is commonly called The Howler of the Piece

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

The views of many conservatives are frequently considered controversial to progressives(liberals). Statements made by Rush and Newt seem very disturbing to the common media employee, and therefore are believed to be so far out of the mainstream as to be damaging to whomever spoke or wrote them. However, in the course of attempting to out conservatives as whack jobs, (or what ever liberals call them now), they only confirm to the majority of their bias, and inadvertently provide another vehicle to promote what the majority of the population already agrees with or at least finds believable and truthful. It also would seem that media is right biased because of the viewer/listenership of conservative/conservative leaning news outlets, and editorialists. Although, I am certain that if you counted the number of conservative and the number of liberal news/editorial outlets, the number of liberal ones would greatly outnumber the conservative counterparts. You have to count, all news channels, broadcast and cable, newspapers, websites and radio shows, both on air and satellite. In the end, you will find many more liberal outlets than conservative ones. The conservative ones just have a larger audience, and since the liberal ones can not regain their singular control of the news cycle, they are attacking the most popular conservative outlets. The Fairness Doctrine may be dead or dying, however, stealth versions of this dogma will be snuck into proposals and legislation, because shutting people up is the only way that the left can compete with logical and realistic arguments

In what universe do the media “bend over backwards to prove they aren't liberal.” Has she watched Oberman, Matthews, Madcow, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN?  They claim they are giving too much coverage to the extreme right while failing to mention that coverage is used only to mock and ridicule them.  It is amusing to watch liberals tell us how accommodating they are. 

There are two words that perfectly describe these PBS liberal twits:  DERANGED and DELUSIONAL.

 Even reading what these folks say in print, their words drip with elitist slime.  They create the lie and then live it , so they can claim some authenticity to their fantasy. They trully sound like country club white trash who place themselves above everybody else in the room...secretly including even those who they happen to be chumming up to at the time.  They are createns and monsters in their own light. These are the very breed of people who will not enter God's heaven, as their egos are so elevated they would surely start critiquing God's creation, as though they are above even God in their intelligence. (And in fact they do always critique who God is and what God has done and have turned from him...to the things of man)  Yet what great things have these folks ever accomplished that gives them this self indulgent flatulence?  What have they ever created?(beside the waste they flush)  The answer is clear; Nothing, they are blots on the face of humanity, they have a form of Godliness, albeit false, that emminates from their very core being...they are in essence white washed tombs, spiffy on the outside, but inside filled with dead mens bones and filth.  Nobody will ever miss these sons of the Devil...noone.

That NPR is so boring that even liberals don't listen.

It's draining to pretend that you're fair and balanced. I mean, you have to actually read what conservatives are saying, and we all know how grueling that is! So, rather than slog through all that ... criticism ... they're now laying the foundation for the excuse they're going to use.

They're not going to present conservative views because it's a "foregone conclusion" that conservatives don't matter.

Besides, these liberal journalists assure us, conservative arguments are refuted by the preponderance of the evidence, right?

It's just a shame that their audience keeps dwindling, because their brilliance has never been more needed ...

"And the people to the left of him, you are right, we don't see them."

What could account for not seeing anyone to left of him (Obama)?

THERE ISN'T ANYONE FARTHER LEFT OF HIM!!!!

Of course they think there s too much conservatisim in the media.  ANY conservatism is too much conservatism to the Elitist Ideological Media culture.

To their way of thinking, liberalism is simply what is, so there can't be such a thing as liberal bias, because how can it be bias when there is no other legitimate point of view?

But let a conservative on a show or in an article and WHOA NELLIE, we can't have that!

They live in another dimension. (Or is it dementian...)

Does it matter then that for the most part the reporting on Limbaugh and Newt is negative? Sure they are in the news alot lately---negatively portrayed---.

..And yes, I would assume that there are less people reporting themselves as Republicans------ they are calling themselves CONSERVATIVES now. Tell the whole story not just lead your audience to believe they are converting to the Democratic party.

These people on PBS kill me... they are merely making and running these shows for themselves. I would not be surprised if they tivo themselves spouting their nonsense so they can go home and enjoy their favorite programs.. .nodding in agreement with themselves the whole time.

Is she implying that Gingrich and Limbaugh are on the "extreme right"? From her perspective, I guess. NPR, I suppose, is "center-left". Gingrich and Limbaugh are pretty moderate "extreme right" if you ask me. Who would Gladstone consider on the "extreme left", Pol Pot?