In the same department, I heard an AP news clip on my local radio station yesterday that was so representative of liberal bias.  They were reporting on Bush's veto of the embryonic stem cell research bill.  During the clip, they featured two congressmen who have children with diseases targeted by stem cell research.  Without so much as a veiled attempt to air the President's point of view on the issue, the news service gave full access for those who favor the bill.  The President - and by associations others who oppose the bill - was made to look like a heartless human being unwilling to give these poor children a cure for their diseases.

The truth, in fact, is that embryonic stem cell research has shown very little promise and that great potential is already being realized using adult stem cells.  But, of course, siting this kind of detail takes away from the effect sought after by this report.  And this type of reporting goes on all day everyday.  From Iraq to the economy, from health care to immigration, time and time again the liberal mainstream media report the news to shape a negative view of conservatives and conservative ideals.

Not just yet.  I want to take a closer look at the way I perceive bias in the media.  We'll call it the tale of two stories.  It is actually the same story, but told with two different protagonists.  Here's the first story.

Mr. Donkey(D) gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar - it doesn't really matter if the offense is criminal or unethical or just questionable.  The media get wind of his indiscretions.  The TV news outlets prepare short pieces on Mr. Donkey and after the big stories of the day are given time, the new anchors cut away to a reporter who briefly interviews someone from Mr. Donkey's office.  The reports are just factual in nature and do not explore any ramifications of Mr. Donkey's actions.  And many of the reports conveniently fail to mention Mr. Donkey's political party affiliation.

Then, The New York Times and The Washington Post publish a two-sentence lead in to the story on their front pages, down below the fold, with a small headline that reads "Mr. Donkey hand in cookie jar".  The reader must then turn to page 16A to read the details.  Over the next day or two, a couple of minor follow-ups are aired, and the story is quietly shuffled into the archives before the weekend is over.

Here is the second story.  Mr. Elephant(R) gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar - again, it doesn't really matter if the offense is criminal or unethical or just questionable.  The media get wind of it.  By six o'clock, the TV news shows are ready with their top story of the night - "More questions of corruption on Capitol Hill".  The first words out of the anchor's mouth are "Republican Mr. Elephant...", and the show spends several minutes interviewing top political correspondents in Washington.  The ramifications of what this will mean to the GOP's chances in the next election and allusions to a more widespread problem within the GOP caucus abound.

The next morning, in full headline splendor, the major newspapers proclaim the wrong done by Mr. Elephant and commit a large portion of the top of the front page to the story.  Over the next two weeks, follow-up after follow-up is aired on the news shows.  Beginning with the tag line "new developments in the cookie jar story", these stories examine every facet of Mr. Elephant's sins.  Everyday citizens, who may have been either directly or remotely impacted by Mr. Elephant's actions, are interviewed, and their woe is broadcast to an ever-increasingly alarmed audience.  Editorials are published berating Mr. Elephant and chastising his party colleagues for their lack of oversight.  On the weekend news shows such as "Face the Nation", Mr. Elephant's story takes center stage, and indignant politicians continue the lashing.

After a week or so of wall-to-wall coverage, polls start to appear showing the damage this story has caused Mr. Elephant.  The media use these polls as impetus to keep Mr. Elephant's indescretions in the limelight.  Finally, after weeks of clobbering Mr. Elephant at every turn, the media has drained every ounce of effect out of the story and the coverage dies down.  But the story is not completely done yet.  It will be referred to many times in the future when subsequent foul play - from either party - comes to light.

In both of these scenarios, the news media cover the story.  But the effects of that coverage are as different as night and day.  This is the track record of the aptly-dubbed liberal mainstream media.  One need look no further than the coverage of ones Jefferson, Reid, Abramoff, and Foley for proof.

Reid realized a 7 figure windfall through some blatantly corrupt land dealings.  That's a terrible abuse of power.  And Mr. Jefferson was finally indicted yesterday for 16 counts of bribery, racketeering, obstruction of justice and money laundering.  In what should have been a blockbuster news story, Jefferson used National Guard trucks and helicopter to "check on his property" and, some have presumed, to recover his freezer full of $90,000 in bribery money.  Here's the kicker:  The clandestine operation occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when many of the people of New Orleans, his own constituents, were still awaiting rescue from the rooftops of the city.

If the party designations of these four men were switched, tales of land deals and cash-laden freezers would have been the main stories of corruption last year, not unethical lobbying and inappropriate emails.