Your #57 and #58- well said.
Smokers often don't think they smell of cigarettes. Liberal journalists think that they don't smell of political slant.
Because their views seem reasonable to them, that they are 'moderate' or in the 'middle of the road' and must appear to be so to any other thinking person. 'Thinking persons' of course, are always other Liberals.
There is an apparent blindness to one's own biases and shortcomings in the trade.
I believe it is also fear. The media still claims they hold a patent on integrity and that their job is to seek out the truth no matter where it leads. For years we, the public, were supposed to accept this just because they said it. Until the internet they could claim that role but do anything they wanted because unless you had access to the media you couldn't challenge them effectively. The Dan Rather fake document scandal was a shot across their bow. They can no longer do anything they want without a challenge, and this has them terrified. It's kinda what wiretap technology did to the Mafia. Unfortunately, just as with every old institution, instead of cleaning their own house the MSM will simply go on the offensive and attack the competition. Their days are numbered.
Just on the off-chance that the author will read this thread- a word about bias is in order.
I am biased. I admit it. I am a Conservative, and I tend to see things from within that paradigm. I usually agree with other Conservatives and disagree with Liberals. But, contrary to the journalism racket's conventional wisdom- I am not an imbecile that needs to be told what to think, or how I should interpret events of the world around me.
But when I see (as an example) two Congressmen- one Republican and one Democrat- who have committed some identical breach of ethics under the exact same circumstances, the Republican (R) will be splattered all over the front page above the fold, and the Dem's coverage will be buried inside. You know how we know he's a Dem (absent mining Google)? The party affiliation usually isn't mentioned at all.
What do you think that says to us about the paper? If the political polarity in the above example were reversed, it would be equally reprehensible, and would identically speak to the credibility of the paper.