Quote:
You didn't read it very carefully. They said that there were more people labelled conservative because there were more conservatives making news. That makes perfect sense, as right now conservatives hold most seats in congress and the presidency.

Because there aren't any liberals making war protests, or filibustering, or slandering Bush like they have been for the last few years, or chipping in about any of the various issues people are concerned about? But assuming that conservatives are "making news" more--6 times more?
There isn't much coverage of war protests. though. The only "protest" coverage I've seen (not counting c-span) is a guy who put up a soldier hung in effigy on his house. That's really it. They don't show anti-war protests anywhere in the US. If the media was liberal, i'd expect them to show the war protests. It would make it seem that the people of the US oppose the war. According to you, that's what the liberal media wants you to think, right?

And if you want to talk about "slandering" presidents, if the media was liberal, why did all the charges by Republicans about Bill Clinton get so much coverage? They investigated Whitewater for years, and it was reported heavily by the press, yet they never actually found anything.
Other than the memo CBS thing, there hasn't been any slander of Bush by the media. One story that was big for maybe two weeks vs 3-4 years of reporting on the investigations on Bill Clinton (Which included rape charges from Arkansas btw). I just don't see a lot of Bush slander.