I recently finished reading Bernard Goldberg's "Bias". His critics have tried to paint him as a right-wing activist, but calling Rush Limbaugh the "anti-Christ" doesn't do much to advance that perception. The book is full of examples of the liberal bias we constantly witness in the media as well as data that supports the observation, and for that it is well worth a read. Bernie observes that the television news media seems almost incapable of taking a position on the issues that deviates from the positions taken by the New York Times. He shows how consistently the conservatives are labeled conservatives as opposed to how a liberal is almost never labeled as liberal in order to enforce the perception that liberals views are simply mainstream. I do take issue with Goldberg's insistence that an anti-(R)/pro-(D) bias does not drive the media's liberal slant. Instead, he insists that it is due to where the news-people live and who they spend their time with (i.e. - liberal enclaves on the coasts where anyone who dares question abortion's use as an alternative to conception control is considered a lunatic extremist). I will not attempt to discredit the influence those factors may have on news-people, but I don't agree with separating those influences from the anti-(R)/pro-(D) bias of the media. Who does Bernie think champions the pro-abortion, anti-war, income-redistribution causes? It is very obviously the Democratic Party. The influences Goldberg claims that drive the bias are intensely partisan. Indeed his own liberal bias occasionally slips into the pages of this book. Every time I read it, I cringed, but I reminded myself how much credibility it gives Bernard Goldberg for shining light on the subject. He was inside, he was guilty as well.