Cam, it
IS their "fault.
The "pure" model of journalism is communication of events to the consumer, who can then run them through her own values system and figure out how to weigh the facts in that great calculus that dictates human behavior, including how to vote.
Deliberately construing objective facts in a light intended to provoke a particular reaction among the audience, where the reaction is
political in nature is the definition of "bias."
It happens because of the irresistable temptation on the part of the journalist to use their position as communicator of facts as a means to advance what they perceive as the correct social agenda.
The comment in the article JP referenced, "We are the social conscience of this country!" perfectly underscores this tendency.
If you are suggesting that liberal journalists simply do not know any better, I submit that they cannot possibly be that naive.
If you are suggesting that they are "faultless" because they are doing what they think is right, well, irrespective of whether you AGREE with their agenda or you don't, it's still a conscious decision to distort, whether for the benefit of the left OR the right.
And THAT, at least in my book, makes them most definitely at fault, in conscious disregard of standards of objectivity.
The toothpaste is out of the tube on that one, though. What remains is the conscious recognition of the bias and demand for alternative material, which we got, in the Mid-80's or so, in the form of AM talk. The proliferation of Internet news sources catering to the world view of the consumer sealed the coffin on network media.