Wait a Minute.

Okay. So wait--I need some help with this one.



A national news organization releases documents which purportedly attack the truthfulness of a sitting president. Analysis seems to suggest these documents may, in fact, be falsified.



Those on the side of the president's ideologies claim that this is the fault of the "bias" of the media, and that it somehow "proves" a media conspiracy.



Meanwhile, a huge number of media outlets--again, run by those who share the president's ideologies--have spent enormous amounts of time slandering the president's opponent, often with little or no documentation or coroborration and often in direct OPPOSITION to the available facts.



The number of people reached by the media outlets _supporting_ the president's ideologies and slamming his opponent vastly outnumbers the number of people reached by the media outlets _questioning_ the president's past.



Doesn't that void the claims of "media bias" from that side? If there is a bias here, isn't it in the OTHER direction?? Isn't it possible that someone just didn't check their facts? (An inexcusable lapse, if true--but not an impossible one.)



And why, when WE suggest a possible "bias" in the media, are we told to shut up and smile and be conciliatory--whereas, when THEY cry "bias", it's taken as an article of faith?