Former USA Today editor and current president of the Newseum and of the First Amendment Center, Ken Paulson offers "The myth of 'media bias'" (firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=23016). He denies the incredibly obvious existence of massive, overt, and systemic media bias. Instead, he suggests that what most people mean when they refer to bias is based on "cable channels that shamelessly favor one side or another", when that's actually in some ways the antidote to the bias that Paulson can't find with both hands. He also pretends that the issue of bias involves reporters simply getting their facts straight. A source like the New York Times does (in the vast majority of cases) make sure that they get basic facts like someone's name correct.

The more pernicious mainstream media bias comes into play through things such as selecting which stories to cover and from which angle, terminology used, failing to note material affiliations, failing to challenge one side while viciously attacking another, and so on and on. And, while the mainstream media leans left, their more pernicious leaning is towards the establishment: very few media figures are willing to challenge those who have actual power.

And, how would Paulson explain away the mainstream media stories discussed on the PIIPP page? Those cookie-cutter articles are open advertisements from the anti-American DREAM Act; they rarely mention the downsides of that bill and when they do it's surrounded by agenda-driven "reporting". How would he explain why, despite dozens of articles quoting him, no mainstream media source that I'm aware of has revealed Peter Schey's material links? How would he explain reporters like Nina Bernstein or all the other immigration reporters who, instead of following the money, try to obscure the trail?

If Paulson makes an appearance in your local area, ask him about some of the more obvious examples of bias listed on the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, or Washington Post pages.