My interpretation: They report both sides but highlight the LIBERAL stuff (beginning with a pro LIBERAL or anti-conservative headline) and put the conservative stuff at the bottom of the page, use inflammatory adjectives and/or edit it.
and this, of course, is sickeningly obvious (recall that michael ishikoff [sp?] with newsweek passed the lewinsky story on to drudge when his editors 'spiked' it).
your interpretation concerns what happens to and within a story, once a decision is made to run with it, and puts the lie to the author's preposterous claim that stories are balanced in their presentation.
nothing could be farther from the truth. remember the story a few days ago about the various voter fraud de jour working their way through the court system? out of the half dozen examples cited, only the case involving a republican was mentioned with party affiliation.
"balanced in their presentation." indeed.
but, it's nice to see an admission that they attempt to influence people's opinions by selective reporting. i'll take it.
we'll know that they've awakened to the power of the internet, though, when we read: "we have systematically lied to the american people without surcease for decades, but beg you to give us one more chance. please. what else will we do for a living if NO ONE pays any attention anymore? besides, it really wasn't our fault ... we had to lie because george bush wouldn't be honest about his tang time."
ooops. eh, plus ca la change, plus le meme chose.