It isn't so much that hearing a story that's negative to my side makes me think "bias". It's that I hear predominately stories that are negative to my side and positive to the other. Also, pretty much every conservative you meet will tell you the same thing, so it's not just me.
But every conservative you meet is also conservative. That's my point. We're all biased and thus totally unqualified to judge bias. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to, by the way, but we also need to be mindful of our own biases. I think that thought process, more than any change in the press, would go a long way to fixing politics in America.
The other issue is that we assume that stories that are predominately negative means bias, when it doesn't necessarily. Impartiality does not necessarily mean that we think both sides are equally valid. It's sort of like following this abortion/birth control debate. No matter what you're opinion, there is no bias in thinking that Joe Walsh and Todd Akin are full of shit. They are, period. It would be a disservice to say otherwise.
>We're all biased and thus totally unqualified to judge bias.
I have to disagree. I'm pretty sure if I wanted to put in the time I could show that NPR reports, say, 90% of the national stories that hurt Romney but only 60% of national stories that hurt Obama.
Sure, stories about Joe Walsh and Todd Akin should be there. But so should stories about Benghazi and gunwalker.
