I first read this by EJ Dionne a few days ago,

but saw it again today at ShrinkWrapped and had to say a couple of things:
Yes, you read that correctly: If you doubt that there is a conservative inclination in the media, consider which arguments you hear regularly and which you don't. When Rush Limbaugh sneezes or Newt Gingrich tweets, their views ricochet from the Internet to cable television and into the traditional media. It is remarkable how successful they are in setting what passes for the news agenda.

The power of the Limbaugh-Gingrich axis means that Obama is regularly cast as somewhere on the far left end of a truncated political spectrum. He's the guy who nominates a "racist" to the Supreme Court, wants to weaken America's defenses against terrorism, and is proposing a massive government takeover of the private economy. Steve Forbes, writing for his magazine, went so far recently as to compare Obama's economic policies to those of Juan Peron's Argentina.
Let's see, lots of media weenies quoting Rush and Gengrich and generally casting them as nuts when they do, counts as 'a conservative inclination in the media', huh?

Only if you're delusional.

This was brought home at this week's annual conference of the Campaign for America's Future, the progressive group that supports Obama but worries about how close his economic advisers are to Wall Street, how long our troops will have to stay in Afghanistan, and how much he will be willing to compromise to secure health care reform. In other words, they see Obama not as the parody created by the far right, but as he actually is: a politician with progressive values but moderate instincts who has hewed to the middle of the road in dealing with the economic crisis, health care, Guantanamo and the war in Afghanistan.
'Progressive values but moderate instincts'? 'Hewed to the middle of the road'? I'll use the word 'delusional' again.

SW's post is on the failure of the media to do its job. Which, they seem to have forgotten, is to report information. NOT decide what we should hear(in their opinion), NOT to slant it to fit their view, NOT to act as a mouthpiece for one political party, but to REPORT INFORMATION. Which is why I refer to so many of these clowns as 'sorry excuses for reporters'. They're not reporters, they're 'journalists', and damn well off the rails at that. That so many of them(and a lot of leftists and 'progressives') seem to think that their work to cast Rush as a 'spokesman of the Stupid Party' so they can demonize and try to sideline him(and anyone who agrees with any of what he says) think that means the media has a 'conservative inclination'... That's just flat effing stupid. But a lot of them seem to actually believe it.

Just flat amazing, isn't it?