“You folks”? You mean well-read and articulate posters?
Your link provides evidence that the “MSM” (including Fox, for that matter), have reported on the way that a recent breaking story may be having an effect on an election to shove it more firmly in the direction that polls have been showing it moving for almost five months.
I saw no evidence in your link the the “MSM” (with or without Fox) is trying to engineer an event.
Please note my response to your comment in this thread.
Thank you
[ /Moderating ]
:dubious: The Center for Media and Public Affairs is not an unbiased source.
Nor does it have a good track record for accuracy.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs
Of course the facts could have a liberal bias.
We are clearly a downtrodden minority at the SDMB ! 
Tell me about Thomas Edsal who says that dems in the national press orps outnumber pubs by 15-25 to 1.
You make this too easy. Notice any similarities between the earlier source of your data and this one? I like to call them all “FoS” for short.
You’re attacking the messenger again but I commend you for the speed in which you do so.
:rolleyes: Are you familiar with the concept of “follow the money”? It’s perfectly legitimate to suspect an organization funded by right-wing organizations will not be a reliable source for assessment of media bias.
Feh, just the video on the Brian Springer short shows how clueless Thomas Edsal is. After seeing evidence of misleading reports, it is OK to shoot the creators of BS.
Dude, shooting the messenger is the entire concept of this thread. You’re really not in the best position to make that accusation.
I should note how funny this is considering your OP, but what the heck, I’ll actually respond. There is a difference between a messenger and a mouthpiece. You keep choosing the latter, and in fact, you keep choosing various mouthpieces for the same people, “Friends of Scaife”. I mean seriously, AIM still claims that Vince Foster was murdered. These are the kooks you want to hang your argument on?
OK, let’s talk messengers. I know they aren’t lib enough for most of the gang here but can you give me a few MSM “messengers” that you think are Republican.
Couric?
Mathews?
Sheifer?
Steph.?
Russert?
Olberman?
Blitzer?
Williams?
King?
Cafferty?
60 minutes gang?
On the Pub side I’ll give you Hume, Hannity, O’Reilly (sometimes), Wallace (probably), Scarborough, Carlson… any others?
So that’s most of one network and a couple on another… balanced you think?
I find it interesting that you compare Republican messengers on one side and* liberal * messengers on the other. It seems an unfair comparison; obviously there are liberals who couldn’t be considered “Democrats” just as there are conservatives who couldn’t be considered “Republican”. You’re comparing the smaller group (Reps.) to a larger group (liberals) - doesn’t seem the most balanced comparison.
Oh, and speaking purely for myself I wouldn’t be able to recognise the slant of most of those people (beyond the more famous ones) due to not living in the U.S.; however, I don’t make a point of listening/reading to media that I know will agree with me. I’m a pretty liberal guy (and am no fan of Rupert Murdoch), but the newspaper I get is the Times.
If you had bothered to check what liberals think in DU (There is a thread on 60 minutes too) you would have noticed that virtually only Olberman gets any respect. You are ignoring on purpose that Democrats are not necessarily liberals; as for messengers, you are confusing simple efforts to be fair as being democratic or liberal.
Regarding balance, there is one item conservatives never want to touch, the replacements:
At Fox news, when O’reilly, Hannity etc are out on vacation or because of a falafel incident, the replacements (at least recently) were people like Newt Gingrich, Olliver North and others like that. When reporters in the MSM are replaced many times it is by someone that liberals have never heard before. Really, if there was balance I would expect days were one replacement in the MSM would be someone like Michael Moore. (I would love to see right wingers crap their pants at a sight like that) but we don’t, and that should tell you all just there.
As the “Spin” documentary showed, most of the messengers in the MSM just do not want to make waves. A very “conservative” approach that benefits conservatives in the long run.
How can you say that? I don’t even bother to click on most of the links so how am I supposed to know who you all are citing for all your “facts”?
Seems like I once asked for a list of authorized SDMB fact dispensers and I don’t recall seeing one.
DU? Huh, Ducks Unlimited? 
I’ll give you Fox … convince me the rest aren’t predominately Democrat.
Olberman??? … like I said, I realize they aren’t nearly left enough for you all.
:rolleyes:
Once again check my posts in the thread, otherwise others may get the idea you are not paying any attention.
Once again you are showing here that you are not bothering to check links.
Lets clarify: forget liberal, do you deny there is not even openly democratic substitutes in the MSM when the reporters or talking heads are on vacation?
The purpose of this exersise is to realize that what the “leftist” MSM is really more to the center.
Correction:
Let us clarify: forget liberal, do you deny there are not even openly democratic substitutes in the MSM when the reporters or talking heads are on vacation?
The purpose of this exersise is to realize that the “leftist” MSM is really more to the center.