If you are what/who you say you are and have followed the case and are aware of how the MSM has misrepresented the facts in the case, then you should easily recognize how the world presented by AP, Reuters, CNN, and the other alphabet soup networks bears very little resemblance to the real world. Once you understand that, you should start to see through the lies of the democRAT party. You sound like one capable of thoughtfully disagreeing without being disruptive. If that is the case, you will be welcome around here. Time will tell I suppose.
In general, I have found there to be just a paucity of reporting, good, bad or indifferent, on this case, to my great frustration. The link to the site that was hacked last night (the name of which escapes me, something like the Herald-Journal) has had up-to-date information, but I do view that as advocacy/journalism and hence do tend to be a little suspicious of it. I think the St. Pete newspaper has done the best. (I've learned that often, a national news story is best covered by the papers to which it is local news.)
My feelings on media bias are complicated. I do think there can be a liberal bias in the media sometimes, and that irks me; however, I also think that "liberal media bias!" sometimes becomes a rallying cry whenever conservatives don't like what is printed. (Democrats also do this frequently.)
The biggest bias, I sometimes think, is an anti-whoeversupthatday story. In 1992, the story was all about how George Bush (41) couldn't keep from looking at his watch. In the first two years of Clinton's term, it was about how disorganized he was (which, btw, he was). It's like the old analogy of presidential debates to auto races. People don't come to watch them for the racing, they come to watch them for the crashes. The media's the same.
Anyway, I'd like to see someone, at some point, do a lengthy, in-depth reporting on the folks in the Schiavo matter. Not just who they are now, but what they were like before. How the whole thing has played out.
I was telling my grandma about the case (she is a pro-life Catholic) and she started out believing that it was a case of "parents wanting to hang on to something that isn't there" and moved to being much more agreeable that it was a travesty of justice when I explained how sleazy Michael S. is.