This is an interesting/entertaining op-ed about how the media attempts to deal with its bias. The tone of the writing of this op-ed is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but what is interesting is how frankly the bias is acknowledged by the NYT in their comment on their attempts to deal with it: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-07-06-column06_ST_N.htm They treated it as trivially self-evident: they don't need someone to cover a 'liberal beat' because they are already covering it as their primary focus. Apparently, having someone assigned to cover the "conservative beat" is not unusual, as the main subject of the article is a "conservative beat" reporter for another paper who was relieved of his post due to inflammatory anti-conservative comments. Sounds like the "conservative beat" isn't a post reporters take to with much enthusiasm. And the discrepancy sometimes comes through in the reporting: A responsible reporter must also examine the corollary of such an issue: why aren't 'left-wing natives upset'? That's key to understanding why they missed the story in the first place and for trying to prevent it from happening in the future. The answer is obvious, but probably not comfortable for a liberal press outlet to think about: they missed the story because they are so biased that left-wing crackpottery by a democratic politician didn't raise a red flag for them. Uncomfortable or not, it is something they must think about if they are sincere in their effort to provide balanced coverage. Having someone on the "conservative beat" only gets them halfway.