One point of clarification: When I say "hardly useful in coming to a better understanding of what is happening in the world," I am talking about the desire to understand our world in general, i.e. how and why it works--an ongoing effort to be sure. Bias crusaders divert your attention from such understanding for their own political gain, although we may add their efforts to the list of things we would hope to understand.
I find the bias wars annoying because they fool people into thinking that the news media have one political bias (right or left). In fact, they have many political biases. But it is far more important to understand the structural biases if what we wish to do is understand how journalism works and why journalists do the things they do. On this I have said:
"For that better understanding we need a theory.
A theory offers us a model that tells us why things happen as they do. Further, a theory allows us to predict outcomes and behavior. Assertions of ideological bias do neither. While we can expect the press to demonstrate ideological biases in regard to certain issues or other localized phenomena, these and other behaviors are explained and predicted by the structural biases. Since the press sometimes demonstrates a conservative bias, asserting that the press is liberal neither predicts nor explains. Since the press sometimes demonstrates a liberal bias, asserting that the press is conservative neither predicts nor explains."
Let me state this more forcefully: Claims of political bias do not predict journalistic behavior. This means a claim of political bias against the news media in general (right or left and stated as theory), that ignores the structural bias theory, is propaganda.
Again, we may point to any number of localized instances of political bias. And these instances must always be challenged by critics and news consumers. But such localized events do not add up to a liberal or conservative news media in general.