I think you graze the issue, but to point it out specifically, I would like to know the political tendencies of the owners or boards of directors of the media outlets. Then I would like to know how free editors and reporters are to follow their own personal inclinations.

As someone who knows something or two about this business, the reality is that there are at times biases that creep into news stories, but not because of what you think. Most media types tend to be latte Left, that is they are center-left in thinking, which means they are more comfortable at times with centrist conservatives of the type found at a National Review or on the pages of the New York Times (David Brooks) than they are with the hard-Lefties of the Nation. At the same time, most media types, especially reporters, actually work their hardest to avoid biases.

As for directors of companies? Those folks are often too busy actually trying to keep shareholders happy to spend time influencing content. Same for CEOs and most publishers. The reality is that like most bureaucratic organizations, things get done in media businesses without some sort of master plan for bias. The average newspaper, magazine or television station is just plain too busy for all that.

Headlines are written by copy-editors, who may not have read an entire story; thus what seems to be biased is really just a copy editor writing the best possible headline in the most limited amount of space. Stories go through multiple changes because they have been edited by myriad editors; a story with one angle ends up going in a 180-degree direction.

Let's remember that news stories, unlike a specialist blog, has to inform casual readers who may know a lot or very little about an issue. Since their time is limited, hitting on the most important points is crucial. Therefore experts and special interests are going to complain that some nuance of an issue hasn't been mentioned. But as one would say, general media outlets aren't writing for experts, but for the average person. There are other outlets that others can tap for more specialized information.

Then there's the Rolodex problem. Since reporters aren't exactly charged with thinking independently (in other words, they must be objective), they are in need of sources. Often the best sources are the ones you won't get because those people don't need satisfy their need for either revenge or ego-smoothing, the type that can only be gotten by leaking news or commenting for a story, isn't there. More often, reporters are stuck with the second-best sources, folks who are looking to boost their position, bolster their ego, sell a product, service or issue, or are disgruntled.

Since reporters aren't allowed to actually express an opinion, they must rely on their sources. Over time, the views of those sources, because they have proven to be reliable and available for comment, become more reflected in stories. While one tries to expand a source list in order to limit such creep, a busy reporter doesn't always have time to do so.

The Glenn Reynolds of the world and others on both the Right and Left who complain about media bias aren't always wrong about bias. The problem is that because most of these people have never worked in a news organization, they know nothing about how things actually work. So they perpetuate conspiracy theories that to those who are in the know, are just plain laughable. And media studies try to answer a question with search terms and other things that are open to interpretation anyway; what is negative or what is positive depends on perspective.

RiShawn's analysis is a great primer for those of us who haven't experienced journalism since college. I wonder if there is any data about stories (and/or reporters) that don't get to the presses because of their right-leaning views.

Aw, come on RiShawn.

Vast conspiracies are much more entertaining than bumbling fools, laziness and office politics.

Quit taking all the fun out of it :)

Actually it isn't "bumbling fools, laziness and office politics." It's what I have said it is: A lot of talented, hard-working people doing the hard work most of the blogosphere wouldn't want to do on its own, yet profits off through the fact that it also comes rather cheap or in the case of the net, free. People who managed daily to deliver news when you want it and more importantly, when you need it.

And don't give me the crap about what hasn't been reported: That's a fiction based on one's perspective. If you're left of center, then something that you believe in hasn't been reported and same goes for right-of-center types. Both sides, blinded by their ideology, tend not to see reality. And since reality may not fit their worldview, they'll conveniently ignore evidence which doesn't fit and accept those instances that do.

"And don't give me the crap about what hasn't been reported: That's a fiction based on one's perspective."

Hm. I don't necessarily call it "fiction" when it comes from a journalist who was fired from her position for submitting stories that focused, for example, on the scientific qualifications of intelligent design scientists in articles on the debate over intelligent design versus evolution. To me, that sounds an awful lot like fact.

What example are you talking about? Having been around the business long enough, I can tell you that often, a story doesn't make it to print or on air because it's poorly-sourced, has a lot of holes or just simply is being held for future publication because editors have decided there are more pressing stories. Sorry but when a reporter says a story didn't make it for some excuse, there's usually a backstory that he or she won't mention.

I actually heard it on-air, but maybe it didn't make it to your area.

This MMFA piece on that study shows that it has some, well let's say interesting quirks. Such as the fact that the most liberal paper in the country is the Wall Street Journal. And the closest organization to being in the "Mainstream", in other words not biased towards either liberals or conservatives, is the ACLU. And RAND is a liberal organization. Etc.