I'm sure this is just a fabrication of the "liberal media"......
Well, not a fabrication of fact, more like bias by suggestive or implied meaning, yes. Here is one of their favorites:
Eight years after wresting control of the House of Representatives, the party that waged the ''Republican Revolution'' has become somewhat less revolutionary.
Did you see it? When the Democrats take control of either house, or the presidency, a governorship, a mayoral seat, mainstream media typically describes it as "winning" control. Hey, winning! Everybody loves a winner! Viva la winning!
Ah, but the Republicans, presumably supported only by corporations who cannot vote, "wrestle" their elections away from their opponents. That sounds like a big bully, nobody likes a bully. Booo! Down with bullies who 'wrestle' elections away!
Its this kind of unmistakable suggestive metaphorical use which OOZES from the mainstream media. Another common one is how their darling political organizations are referred to as "advocacy groups", "public interest groups", "civil liberties groups", while those they do not like are "special interests" and their "lobbies". Yay for advocacy groups! Boo for evil lobbies and special interests!
There are DOZENS more, but you get the idea.
Now I don't believe for one second this is all the result of some organized or deliberate 'effort' ala 'the vast leftwing conspiracy', but at the same time, one would be a fool NOT to believe that at least SOME of it is deliberate and witting.
Instead, I believe most of it, not all, but most, is done rather innocently and stems from the fact that some 70% - 80% of journalists in mainstream media consistently identify or categorize their personal viewpoints in surveys and questionares as being left of center in some form or another. Even when they identify themselves as 'centrist', they don't mean Anthony Kennedy 'centrist', they mean Ruth Bader Ginsburg 'centrist'. Note: Generally Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not described as 'centrist' by anyone other than those who are left of her.
Their own personal viewpoints unwittingly come through in their journalism. If you personally despise the National Rifle Association and everything it stands for, there is a real chance that you will fall short of writing a balanced and fair article touching upon the National Rifle Association and its positions even if you make it your professional mission to be fair and balance. Some might approach this goal of 'neutrality' in both overtone and undertone, yet still fall short. Some will hit close enough to call a bulls-eye, for all intent and purposes. And that is only those journalists who make an honorable attempt to restrain their personal viewpoints.
We still have those who make not an honorable attempt to restrain their personal viewpoint, but more of an attempt to appear as though they are restraining their personal viewpoint, and those who make no attempt at all.
I believe MOST journalists make an honorable attempt to be fair, whatever the result or outcome.