It's easy to see if the local daily attempted to be as objective as they claim they are then the anger and the frustration as well as the controversy wouldn't exist to fuel talk radio. Is it really the fault of just the liberals though is something that I wonder. As Cannon points out:
Concerns about "liberal bias" arose in this supposed Golden Age, but we had an answer for that: Sure, reporters are liberal, we told our sources, but the publisher is conservative. The ideal being peddled was that, yes, a Depression-era reporter making $8 a week will likely pen pieces extolling the New Deal, but meanwhile the owner/publisher is commissioning editorials lamenting Franklin Roosevelt's assault on capitalism. It sounds esoteric now, but when newspapers were king it worked. (It might still work: The lone news outlet in North America that still operates under this model is The Wall Street Journal. Its editorial pages have been conservative for decades; a recent study found its news pages to be the most liberal in the mainstream media. Guess what: The Journal is the largest circulation paper in this country.) But I digress.
This means that the reality is it is the owners of these media outlets, not the reporters who control the show, both in print and on television. It's completely understandable that people prefer to hear, read and watch news from a position that supports their own personal biases, they want affirmation that "they" are the ones who are correct and the "other guys" are the ones who are wrong. There are still journalists out there that try to actually inform as to the varying sides of an issue but it is growing more rare.
The media did go after Palin, but so did the blogosphere and I believe that had an impact because our media is being impacted by the internet in their desire to keep readership...