I'd bet that liberals are more likely to want to be journalists, just as conservatives are more likely to join the military.  I don't think that the military is turning away Democrats until I'm faced with compelling evidence to the contrary.  I also don't think newsmen are turning away Republican journalists without the same compelling evidence.

Similarly, liberals are more likely to choose to be university professors and teachers.  There is no nefarious plot here to keep conservatives from teaching children and "impressionable" young adults.  It is simply that conservatives don't want to do that sort of work...generally speaking.

the mere fact that they are colors everything they write and do.  Just like Sotomayor and her wise latina's being better decision makers.  Sotomayor is like the biased journalist of the judicial system.  The point that she makes, that she doubts people can be unbiased in ALL or even MOST cases, extends to journalists too.  Perhaps more so.

Why are journalists more liberal than not?  I don't know but I wouldn't doubt if it had to do with an "I want to make a difference" attitude.  That sounds nice but it goes completely against the concept of balanced reporting.  "Making a difference" implies taking an active role in shaping the outcome which is clearly not neutral.

The defense against bias isn't fact-free "balance", it's accuracy.

Of course not.  The defense against bias is fact-FULL and opinion-FREE "balance".  That's the very definition of accuracy as it applies to reporting in my mind.  But very few media pieces are opinion-FREE, quite the opposite.  They are filled with personal interpretations of the actual facts, not merely reports on the facts.  Personal interpretation = opinion.  Selective reporting = bias by omission.  These are the landmarks of the typical media story today.  I doubt that they even realize they are doing it, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I called your premise about media bias lazy because you didn't bother to cite any examples of bias itself and because you didn't explain why journalists would be biased in the first place.

Fair enough, I guess, but doing so would mean that I would have to cite the same material in almost every post I make.  My opinion has been shaped over three or four decades of observing the behavior of the media.  I am not going to try and cite that in every post.

Bottom-line, I consider the MSM to be highly biased to the left.  I don't expect those on the left to be able to recognize that this is the case since the stories will necessarily look like "main stream thought" given their personal context.  If you don't think that they are biased, then fine, but I retain my right to disagree.

Meta: This post is a serious comment.

In terms of adjective bomb-throwing I do to conservatives, I believe it's the most overlooked and one of the most important ones.

I'm not a huge fan of calling gay rights opponents homophobes, or claiming conservatives hate poor people.  It's not just incendiary; it simply ignores some of the central tenets of conservatism and puts a distorted liberal lens on conservative actions.

Laziness, however, I see everywhere in conservative behavior:

- William Kristol was clearly mailing in is every times OP-ed; Safire and Brooks seldom or ever doing any research.  Not one of them can hold Kristof's briefcase, let alone Krugman's.

- That laughable "Republican road to recovery" non-budget with moronic circles and no numbers.  Could they not forsee being labeled as obstructionists and prepare a substantive response.

- Overuse of the catch-all "tax cuts!" solution to every economic problem.  And within the idea of "tax cuts" itself, not bothering with any details.  There are a hundred ways to collect taxes and a hundred different social consequences.  Which tax?  By how much?  And what kind of economic performance standard to they want to hold themselves to if it's enacted?  The lack of detail is infuriating.

- Retartedly simplistic Reaganite "we win, they lose" foreign policy rhetoric.  Ditto for addressing terrorism and ignoring the whole range of Muslim attitudes towards the US.

- Underrepresentation in the academic fields, where emphasis is on knowledge rather than material gain.  Touting the equally simplistic Laffer curve as some kind of basic law of nature whenever it suits them.

- Overrepresentation in both naked and elaborate get-rich-quick schemes like Amway pyramid selling, and used car dealerships.

- Most importantly, the general disdain for public institutions other than the military.  Combine that with an unwillingness to give up the government services that actually benefit you, and you have an everyday conservative.

Running a government effectively is hard, nuanced and complicated.  Decent civil servants have to disregard the trappings of office and toil continuously for little recognition.  As such, only those with a personal conviction in the governments ability to do well by people are likely to be good at it.

All of which means that Conservatives could make great opposition candidates.  They can denounce Liberals when they become corrupt or inefficient.  But for God's sake don't elect them to any important government function.  They appoint too many Brownies.

How dare you say *bite me* !!! How offensive. 

 Meanwhile in your responses you ignore your own implied insults.

 "...the line loony liberals cross in a pathetic effort....."

"...You speak as if you were the local diety..."

"..... you are so naive ......"

".....suffering from auto snivel syndrome..."

 Do you seriously expect sympathy after re-reading your own statements?