Because, as we all know, the decision about what is real is generally decided by popular demand.
Ummm, cite, please? Maybe 20 % is what it looks like from here, and if I don’t count fence-sitters, that’s generous.
Sometimes news is so important (or becomes so obvious) that reportage becomes unavoidable. No one has said that the MSM NEVER reports bad or harmful things about Democrats or the left. What the MSM does do, however, is present a consistently positive portrayal of leftie politicians and aims, while simultaneously presenting the right-wing viewpoint with skepticism and suspicion. That is why the MSM is said to be biased rather than full-on prejudiced (which is ironic because prejudice is the very reason for the bias to begin with. I personally would have no trouble characterizing the MSM as prejudiced).
It doesn’t strike you as funny that telling the “real story” somehow always seems to have a liberal slant? (And yes, I know the old saw about truth having a liberal bias but I wouldn’t have thought anyone actually believed it.)
I’ve wondered about this – it might be because people with whom he disagrees simply won’t come on the show.
Along similar lines, Rachel Maddow often indicates that she would welcome “opponents”, but they seem to rarely take her up on her offer.
There are hundreds of elected officials in both parties, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of partisan political operatives, commenters, columnists, authors, pundits and bloggers on both sides, the vast majoity of whom would love to advance their careers by appearing on national TV.
I don’t doubt that some individuals may decide not to go on those shows, but the idea that every prominent conservative turns them down is laughable.
What’s more likely, IMO, is that the really big names – top Senators, House leaders, etc – would rather go on Fox or CNN for ratings reasons, and MSNBC doesn’t want their people to look second-rate when all they can book are backbenchers, minor governors and lesser pundits. Easier to have nobody on and then talk about how the conservatives are all so scared of them,
You are SOOOO ignorant.
Bill O’Reilly, is neither a liberal, nor a conservative. Politically he’s independent. He has no alliances. That’s why they call it “The No Spin Zone.”
He’s impartial.
Fox News is “fair and balanced.”
It is perfectly in the center.
If you think it’s not, that’s only for the same reason that if you lived in Antarctica you’d consider Brazilians northerners.
I think people are generally invited to be on these shows. Perhaps she’s merely paying lip service to having opponents
on so as to create the impression that she is willing to debate, but not actually inviting them.
Wouldn’t surprise me.
ETA: Or upon further review, what furt said.
If I wrote “No Shit Zone” on the wall above my toilet, would that mean that I wasn’t going to shit there anymore, or that the wall is a liar?
Not shit there anymore.
I used to do almost exactly that when I lived on a farm and the septic tank was dangerously overfull.
I just tried to type “Whoosshh…” in all caps and when I previewed, the letters converted to lower case. Tried it again, same result.
S’up with that?
. . . and not such as would be considered “leftist” at all in most industrialized democracies. Which they’re not.
Well, they aren’t broadcasting to a bunch of socialist lefties who owe the fact that they aren’t goose-stepping or calling each other comrade to the engine of power, might and technological innovation that is the United States, are they?
Okay, I don’t really mean that…but you get the idea. 
A hell of a lot of good has come about around the world because of the entrepreneurial drive, the capitalistic economy, and military might of the United States of America, not to mention the extraordinarily lush and comfortable lives lived by most of the people in this country.
If you think those countries have such a wonderful grip on the citizen/government relationship, why are you wasting your life here? Time’s a wastin’ and the years go by faster than you think. You’ll probably be dead long before this country ever goes that far down the drain…if for no other reason that our military is the one freeing them up from spending money on their own defense and allowing them to play nanny to their citizens in a way that isn’t possible here…unless we want Mexico to come up or Canada to come down and kick our ass and take all our women. And once that happens, what do you think will become of your beloved Western European socialist states?
Can you say, “Da, comrade?”
Yeah, I thought that you could.
Do the ducks perform ritual sacrifice on the kittens to appease the car gods?
President Andrew Shepherd: For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was, to a certain extent, about character, and although I have not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I’ve been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character. For the record: yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But the more important question is why aren’t you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: Why would a senator, his party’s most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the Constitution? If you can answer that question, folks, then you’re smarter than I am, because I didn’t understand it until a few hours ago. America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say "You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the “land of the free”.
From “The American Paradox,” by Ted Halstead, published in The Atlantic Monthly, January/February 2003:
Each approach to the social contract has its pluses and minuses, of course, but on balance America has made a very bad bargain for itself and should learn from the examples of others.
If you don’t like the way America’s going under Obama’s leadership and Dem predominance, why don’t you leave?
No country on Earth has any need of American military protection any more, not even South Korea, and certainly no nation in Europe.
It does that because it detected you were trying to Whoosh me when I wasn’t Whooshed, but participating in the Whooshing.
Software has a setting that prevents an entire post from being ALL CAPS. Find some way of putting at least one lower-case character there, and the rest can be capitalized.
F’rinstance:
ETA: But wierdaaron’s answer is good, too. 
This is your argument that conservatives are the exemplars of objectivity?
How do they manage to do that in a half-hour nightly NEWS cast? There’s only so much room to impart partisan advocacy in the reporting of the day’s events.
Sure, maybe there’s a slight left-wing bias in how some news stories are framed, but there are no partisan pundits on the 3 networks like most of the programming on Fox consists of. (Skepticism, scorn and condescension? Who does that remind me of?)
The basic rule of thumb is that the typical MSM outlet is as biased to the left as the typical big-city police department is racist. That is, slightly, but greatly exaggerated by their political opponents.
When they can pry her from my cold, dead…OK, that’s going to need some work…