Yeah I see what you mean re debating the indoctrinated. I'm pretty sure Maddow covered the rally, not sure what her count was... so the old Maddow anti-abortion agenda?

Hers' the stories where the NYT "ignored" fast and furious, the first from October 2011: http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=...

Maybe you guys should focus on how to use search tools. You can save a lot of time with false claims. BTW here's the only mention of the rally in the Times, sorry it didn't get better coverage;
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/ran...

You can do these searches too if you want to really test your theories out. I'm guessing you don't feel like it...

PS. NOT a sentence: "Mr. Holder’s interview with The New York Times where he called us in the media racist." Cute how you include yourself.

Uhm:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=...

and
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rl...

You know how to do a search right?

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rl...

CNN, NPR, Fox News, the list goes on and on... so which outlets are "ignoring" this? Someone outta teach Mary how to use the Google.

Sure, I know all about F&F from MSNBC. Maybe the author doesn't consider it a mainstream outlet. It's in the Times and major networks so one would have to wonder where the proof of its "absence" comes from.

Of course not, you have no argument other than the one I anticipated. From the amount of comments on this thread I'd say you have no trouble wasting your time.

The Bush admin had the press in it's pocket in the lead up to the Iraq War, mostly through DOCUMENTED intimidation, paying people to air propaganda, and straight-up media fraud (Jeff Gannon anyone?) ... anyone honestly "aware" would have to admit that... ESPECIALLY the Times, who ultimately had to apologize for checking Cheney's lies against Chalabi's. Yet the liberal media myth continues, and folks who hate Obama see objective coverage as biased since everyone else is supposed to hate him too. Guess that is what you call awareness.

I've read Bernie Goldberg's book (which is very light on facts, BTW), but I also read Al Gore's The Assault on Reason, which you should read to understand how the Bush admin made the press fall in line.

Gore's point is there isn't any awareness without facts. In Obama vs. Bush on press "manipulation" I have some facts and you have a "feeling," or at least you haven't offered any concrete facts to support your claim, just vague insults about how "unaware" you think I might be.

I doubt you can make the argument because it clashes with the other lie about a "liberal media" ... which is basically why would Obama NEED to do anything when the lib media will do what he likes already.

So you are off the hook with no facts and no argument. At least READ Bias. Then you can see how
"aware" the guy who created this whole thing was.