Terry Neal: I don't think any one example proves that the media is biased one way or another. In fact, I'd say coverage of the Landrieu win was just about right, not slanted either way. And I'm not going to pretend that I monitored the entire media (what a job that would be) on this subject, but I did see reporting in the Washington Post and New York Times along the lines you mentioned (although nobody used the phrase "with her best hand tied behind her back"). Had the outcome of her election determined control of the Senate, I believe it would have warranted--and received--greater coverage.

Alexandria, Va.: In a 1995 survey, The Freedom Forum found that 89 percent of D.C. journalists voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Your thoughts?

Terry Neal: I've heard that before, but never knew where it came from. I'm not doubting it, ok, but I would like to see exactly who was asked this question and the way it was asked. But even if that was true, I would say this: I wonder what percentage of reporters voted for George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that at least one nonpartisan organization has declared that Bush received far more favorable coverage than Gore in 2000. As the Post's beat reporter covering the Bush campaign in 2000, I don't know that I necessarily agree with that, but that is the impression that a some media watchdogs have.

Kingstowne, Va.: If reporters aren't biased, why do they always label groups such as the Heritage Foundation as conservative, but never the Brookings Institution as liberal? Is it because the reporter, perhaps subconsciously, agrees with the agenda of liberal special interest groups or think tanks, and therefore thinks such groups are mainstream when theey are not? They would NEVER forget to label a conservative group as such (or as right-wing, extremist, etc.) That is the most blatant example of how liberal the media are.

Terry Neal: I don't know. Part of that may be that Heritage Foundation describes itself as conservative. Proudly so. I don't think Brookings holds itself up as a "liberal" stalwart, but more as progressive think-tank. But I would also say that I have seen often Brookings described as "liberal" so I'm not sure I even agree with the premise of your question. In any case, if that's the most blatent example of how liberal the media is, then it's probably doing ok.

Concord, Calif.: Hi, Terry.

My question's pretty simple. I'm a member of the GOP, and I don't believe there's a liberal bias to the media. All the peer-reviewed literature points to an anti-incumbent bias, if a bias is present at all. But, let's be honest. The GOP is simply better than the Democrats at the basic blocking and tackling of politics -- staying on message, defining the playing field for the debate, and keeping the message simple. Uniting a bloc of voters under the flag of "liberal media bias" has been an effective tool.

So my question is this: How come the Democrats haven't been able to get their act together? Richard Mellon Scaife, Rush Limbaugh, and a thousand wannabes have done a fantastic job of engaging conservatives and making them more likely to vote. I don't like the tactics, but I like the results. I just wonder why the Democrats haven't been able to successfully counter this strategy over the last 15 to 20 years.

Thanks. Love your writing.

Terry Neal: Thanks for this thoughtful message. And I think it is largely on point. There are those who argue, for instance, that for however liberal the Post used to be, it now is more inclined to favor whoever is in power. But to your larger point, I think the GOP has been cleaning the Democrats' clock in terms of staying on message. I also think it is more ideologically cohesive as a party, which makes it easier to do so. What you say about Scaife, Limbaugh, et al, is on point. The Democrats have no answer to this sort of advocacy. That's not the fault of conservatives, it's their own fault. I mean, look at Donohue's show: For liberals, he's the really about the only show out there and nobody watches his show. This fits into my theory that even liberals don't want to watch liberals on tv or listen to them on radio.

Bethesda, Md.: The recent flak at the New York Times for spiking one of their sports writer's column (for disagreeing with an Augusta/Tiger Woods) editorial could very well be describe as a liberal bias, could it not?

Terry Neal: Great question. I think the NY Times erred badly by spiking those columns--primarily because it played into the bias charge. I don't know the motives of the editor who made the decision to spike the column, but I do know this: It was a bonehead, absurd decision.

Bloomsburg, Pa.: Do you think the media are biased in terms of anti-war movement coverage both abroad as well as in the U.S.?

Terry Neal: Ah, interesting...You know, I thought it was interesting that the so-called "liberal" Washington Post buried deep inside the paper a tiny little story about an anti-war rally on the Mall that drew in excess of 100,000 people. But this speaks toward my feeling that the mainstream media is not so much liberal as it is corporate, and biased toward those who hold power and prestige. Perhaps the Post of 30 years ago would have been all over that anti-war rally, but the Post of today thought it barely worth a mention.

Bellevue, Wash.: "Liberal media bias" is one of those concepts that's unbelievably slippery, and can be shifted to one's needs at any given time. Just like "judicial activism" is another phrase for "I didn't like the decision", "Liberal media bias" is often a stand-in for "I don't like reality; it doesn't fit nicely into my preconceived notions of the world."

Still, the Republicans have done a great job of making it an issue, even without any actual evidence of truth. How come the Democrats haven't been able to counter?

Terry Neal: I agree. I think much of it is selective perception. I'll give you an example...I few weeks ago, I wrote a column (and I am a columnist, so my job is to write my opinion) that was pretty laudatory toward the president, giving him credit for leading his party to victory on Nov. 5. But it also argued that while the election was historic, it was not a mandate for wholesale adoption of the GOP agenda. Most of the e-mail I received on this column from both sides was good, but a number of conservative wrote railing that this just showed how biased the Post was toward liberals and how biased I was. I pointed out that prior to my column, the paper had run two columns (one by George Will, the other by Charles Krauthammer) absolutely hammering the Democrats and arguing that election was a mandate against the Democrats. At that point, the Post was running columns 2-1 in favor of the conservative position, yet my critics on this piece saw my column as evidence of institutional bias even though this institution had run more articles in favor of their position!

Okay, can we talk about bias?: I was a journalism major as an undergrad and just completed my masters in communications and I've come to the conclusion that there is bias everywhere and the belief in objectivity is simply a pipe dream that never existed. I would also say that the whole labeling of liberal vs. conservative is in itself biased. Whether a viewpoint is considered to be liberal or conservative is situational, entirely based on where the listener lies on the spectrum. I consider myself to be conservative and have on numerous occasions claimed a particular viewpoint to be liberal only to be corrected by my liberal colleagues that they consider it to be conservative.

Terry Neal: I agree with you to a point. But I disagree that everything is biased. I mean when I was a news reporter (rather than a columnist), I had no problem printing opinions that differed from mine. I mean, that's not even difficult, if you are a trained journalist who cares about the integrity of your profession. The other thing is, over the 13 years I've been a journalist, I've written on literally hundreds of topics. And the truth is, I wrote about a whole lot of stuff that I had no opinion on whatsoever. But I guarantee if someone didn't like something I wrote, they assumed it was because I was biased in one way or another.

Washington, D.C.: Oh please. Do you really need someone to spell out the blatant examples of liberal media bias? I could write a book -- never mind, Bernard Goldberg already has.

Still, here is one example for your edification:

Did you see the uproar when it was revealed that the head of Fox Roger Ailes had sent a private note to President Bush? Why wasn't there a similar uproar when it was revealed that CNN head Rick Kaplan had slept over at the White House and golfed with President Clinton?

Terry Neal: Uproar? Give me a break. It was reported and it should have been. And the only reason you know about Kaplan was because that was reported also.

Washington, D.C.: OK, here's another poll for you, this one being the Kaiser/Public Perspective survey in 2001:

Only a tiny fraction of the media identify themselves as either Republican (4 percent), or conservative (6 percent).

Even Howard Kurtz, the Post's media affairs reporter, admits that reporters are usually more left-wing than the general public.

Terry Neal: I did not suggest that the mainstream media is dominated by conservatives nor would I. But I don't believe it is dominated by liberals either. I think most reporters would identify themselves as moderate. And while there may be more left leaning people in the media, I think most--but not all, certainly--make an effort to keep their bias out of their reporting. I think many conservatives point to people like Dan Rather and Bryant Gumbel to prove the point that the media is biased. But proving the existence of liberals in the media doesn't mean the media is biased toward liberals. I respect the opinion of everyone who disagrees, but I don't buy it.

Washington, D.C.: In the opening, it says that your recent column got Limbaugh talking. What was his reaction?

Terry Neal: I don't know. I wrote a column on the subject of media bias (see here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13623-2002Dec5.html) that caught a lot of attention. I got tons of e-mail from readers, and the vast majority of it was positive from both conservatives and liberals, who said they liked it because I gave both sides. One person who heard it told me Limbaugh was ripping me, for whatever reason, but some readers who e-mailed me said he was just pointing it out and was neither kind or unkind. So I don't know, really.

Arlington, Va.: Terry, I think it's hilarious how defensive you and other members of the liberal establishment media get when it's pointed out that your bias is showing. The truth hurts, right?

Did you think you could fool us forever? Now that we have access to more moderate news sources, like Fox News, we can see the difference in the way news is reported to slant it one way or another.

For example, on the first day of the UN inspections, a left-wing organ like the Post might write, "Iraqis Cooperate With Inspectors." A moderate source would write, "Air-raid siren warns Iraqis of inspectors, who get lost on the way to a deserted site. They found nothing, of course, because the UN doesn't want to find anything."

We see through you.

Terry Neal: I find hilarious that you would call me "defensive" for standing up for what I believe in. In other words, if I don't acception your supposition, I'm defensive. In fact, I heard Rush saying the other day that any reporter who disagrees with the point that the media is biased toward liberals is "arrogant." You know, I debated in high school for four years and this is a fabulous tactic: When someone disagrees with you, label them defensive or call them arrogant, which of course they have to spend denying rather than talking about the main point. Here's where I stand: You can call me whatever you want. And I'm going to keep right on standing up for what I believe in and saying what I believe. Finally, I'd say this, when you say you "see through" me, your note presumes that I'm so scared of your judgment that I have to hide who I am. Now that, to me, is arrogance.

Washington, D.C.: Here's a question for the "media is liberally biased" crowd: If the media IS so liberal, why was Gore buried? Why does Bush get a free ride on things Clinton would be smeared over? Where's the support for left-leaning ideas? I just don't see it.

Terry Neal: This series of questions just proves to me that bias is in the eye of the beholder. I get as many e-mails from people now who believe the media is biased toward conservatives as I do from people saying the opposite, and I disagree with them as well. The media is just too big, with too many people, with too many different perspectives to label it any one particular way.

Wilmington, Del.: Mr. Neal:

I love your columns, but disagree with you here. The fault in your theory is that you allow reporters to identify themselves as "moderates." Truth is, liberals don't generally identigy themselves as liberals, but rather believe that the liberal view is the "moderate," mainstream view. Thus few in the media call themselves liberals, true.

Terry Neal: I'm glad you enjoy my columns. I appreciate that. And regarding your opinion, I'm not sure I agree with you, but I respect your opinion. I think most people are smart enough to know who and what they are. Thanks for writing.

Alexandria, Va.: I find that when people foam at the mouth about liberal media bias they are generally talking about Tom, Dan and Peter, papers in New York, L.A. and D.C., and NPR. They forget the vast majority of outlets in medium and small markets, the overwhelming majority of which are conservative. How many editorial endorsements did GWB get in 2000? I'll wager he was endorsed by most daily papers in the country.

Terry Neal: Interesting point. But I would also say that conservatives have virtually all of talk radio (other than NPR), the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the New York Post, Fox News...I would also argue that while the Post editorial page still may lean left, it has certainly come more to the center, particularly on foreign policy issues. Look at the paper's support for the president on the Iraq issue. No liberal rantings, there. Also, on the op-ed page, there are as many, if not more, conservative columnists (George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bob Novak, Michael Kelly) now than liberals (Mary McGrory and that's about it, in terms of consistent liberals)

Chicago, Ill.: Do you think the fact that there is a demand for blatantly conservative media outlets (Rush, Fox, etc.) while there isn't nearly as much demand for liberal outlets indcates that the left doesn't see a need for them because their views are presented in the mainstream press?

Terry Neal: Good question. I would answer, no to that, though. Most liberals I know don't think the mainstream media presents their views. I mostly hear complaints from liberals that the media ignores the anti-war movement, treats Gore like a bad disease and is overly positive about Bush.

Baltimore, Md.: Terry,

Following up on Howard Kurtz's column on the comments of Trent Lott at last Thursday's reception for Trent Lott, I ask, do we even need to have this discussion? The media treated this story with kid gloves for the better part of a week before John Lewis (D-Ga.) and other upstanding national leaders shamed your colleagues into covering it. It amazes me that we have a Senate majority leader with a clear history of ties to racist organizations and a press that is unwilling to call him on it unless pressured into doing so. So much for liberal bias.

Terry Neal: We've received a number of letters like this in recent days about the Post's and most of the mainstream media's lack of coverage of this subject. In any case, for the record, the Post did write a story on this today.
As I said, bias is in the eye of the beholder...

Fort Worth, Tex.: No liberals besides Mary McGrory? Ummm...what do you call Richard Cohen? E.J. Dionne? Molly Ivins? Michael Kinsley?

If you feel these writers are moderate, then you have been on the East Coast far too long.

Terry Neal: No, you're right about Cohen, who is pretty liberal. Ivins is not a regular contributor to the op-ed page. Dionne I believe is pretty moderate. Thanks for catching me on that, though.

San Diego, Calif.: It's funny that you can list off the top of your head all of the "conservative" media: WSJ, Fox, etc., but you're not willing to list the obviously left-wing media. Why not? Would saying the obvious, that all of the network news, CNN, most of the major national papers, and Hollywood are blatantly liberal make it clear that in terms of readership/viewership, liberals still operate a near-monopoly on the news?

Terry Neal: No, I acknowledged what the reader said about most of the major papers being left leaning and then I listed the names of right-leaning organizations. I do believe that the editorial pages of the NY Times, Wash Post and LA Times are more left leaning. No question...

Anyway, I was supposed to be on for an hour and was having so much fun, I went a little longer than scheduled. This was great folks, we must do it again some time. Take care!

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

   |      |