This is not as true as it once was. The Internet means that we have many more sources of information. This includes a measure of original source material, aside from blogger spin on mainstream news.
In the Georgia situation, for instance, relying on the MSM would lead you to believe "Russia bad, Georgia good." But there are alternative sources showing the opposite, and the reasons for that.
And I even used to BE a journalist, and I know from very personal experience that they are EXTREMELY liberal and will labor to CENSOR information that does not fit their agenda. So, I may not know what that precise information is, but I know there's a likelihood I'm not getting the full story.
I don't understand how it is a liberal media, or what you mean by that. I'd say the media was very conservative towards Clinton.
And were they "liberal" on the wmd story? If you mean pussies, gullable and lazy, yes they were. But they certainly weren't liberal when they talk about alberto gonzo, scooter, how the bush regime has done 52 impeachable
offenses, 8 us attorney firings, deleting white house emails, habius corpus...
basically, I heard so many things on my liberal stations so I know the mainstream isn't telling you what a liberal station would be telling you.
rich station owners who bought up the media in 1997 after clinton deregulated the industry now set the agenda. it was a silent coup. Of course they are subtle about it.
But if you know the facts from 1997 to now, you know the media is no longer liberal. it serves the gop and certainly corporate america.
do you deny that? be honest.