The headline looked promising: The Six Forms of Media Bias” from the weekday newsletter of New York Times writer David Leonhardt. Would a confession of liberal media bias follow? Not really: "Conservative bias. It’s real, too. Fox News and talk radio are huge, influential parts of the media. They skew hard right, and they often present their readers with misleading or outright false information..."



The Washington Post under the ownership of Jeff Bezos unapologetically preaches for liberal bias, and not just with the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" swagger on Page One. On Thursday, Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan claimed today's media is just too darn.....centrist? Yes, that's what she claimed. Her column was headlined "Journalism that stays in the middle lane? I'll pass." It could also be headlined "Centrists stink, the media needs to be more liberal."



It was a stark contrast at the top of Friday's Style section of The Washington Post. At the far right was a typically harsh anti-Trump piece by media columnist Margaret Sullivan headlined "For Trump, USA Today acts like USA Toady." Really? Right next to that piece was a toadying puff piece on Michelle Obama by Peter Slevin. The subhead was "Michelle Obama steps into the spotlight to promote voting and girls' education (and sell a zillion copies of her memoir, Becoming)."



In a segment titled “So many lies, So little time” on his Sunday show Reliable Sources, CNN's Brian Stelter complained about the hardship of fact-checking every one of President Trump's statements: “Should there be a bug in the corner of the screen that says, ‘Warning, the president's probably misleading you again’?” A panelist later offered another imaginative suggestion: to assume that everything the president said was false, and “fact-check him backwards.”  



One nasty, if hardly unexpected result of the horrific mass shooting at the Annapolis Capital-Gazette newspaper is the attempt to smear it onto "anti-press sentiment." Liberals protest that they're not really accusing conservatives of shooting reporters, but they are, as usual, part of a "climate" of hatred.



Sunday, Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan called for an end to the annual White House Correspondents Dinner. She didn't mention her similar-themed February 2017 column, likely because she filled up Sunday's allotted space lamenting that the event handed an absent President Donald Trump a PR victory, and with a howler about the performance and alleged integrity of the establishment press.



It says everything one needs to know about both James Comey and the liberal media. Even The Washington Post admits to the obvious game about the fired FBI Director’s imminent book tour. Headline from The Post: "Ready for the media’s Comey swoonfest? Nothing can stop it now."



Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan has proven herself to not only be a liberal media cheerleader, but a pathetic partisan hack. Her column for Wednesday’s newspaper showed that as she sought to build a protective wall around the anti-gun, far-left Parkland students despite their fact-free, vile rhetoric.



Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan is tweeting out her latest column with this copy: "Why is the NRA attacking the reality-based press? For the same reason Trump does." She claimed the NRA is terribly wrong "about the news media as their adversary." For someone who boasts their advocacy for a "reality-based press," how can it be claimed that the media doesn't oppose the NRA?



Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan unleashed a personal attack on Fox News host Howard Kurtz in a Sunday book review at the most transparent “Pot, meet kettle” level of criticism. She attacked Kurtz as an insincere creature of Fox News, and as a tool of White House adviser Kellyanne Conway. Carlson’s opener is laughable, claiming there is no such thing as the media warring on President Trump. It's a "false premise" and Kurtz "knows it's not true."



Women speaking courageously about sexual harassment is highly rewarded in media circles right now. Roy Moore's accusers in The Washington Post have been hailed as brave and credible....especially by The Washington Post. Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote another Team Player column about how her newspaper's sources should be honored. Somehow, Sullivan can't remember that last year, she smeared Bill Clinton's accusers when Donald Trump brought them to an event before the second presidential debate. She called them participants in a "truth-averse" Steve Bannon exercise, a "surreal gathering, a "twisted version of the Last Supper."



Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan veered into the absurd on Monday with a column that she summarized on Twitter:  “Hillary Clinton thinks the news media was unfair to her. She’s right.” For example, “She makes a convincing case that coverage of her email practices as secretary of state was way over the top.”

Actually, Hillary claimed it was “the biggest nothing-burger ever....They covered it like it was Pearl Harbor.” Does Sullivan find that characterization convincing? Or is that way over the top?