Obviously you don't read my posts.
Both Partyies tell untruths and spin. Both Parties and their partisans accuse negative "news"/reports/commentary as being the product of a biased media. Partisans of both Parties over generalize, blow stuff out of proportion, and act as if an unbiased media is both possible and exists.
In actual fact, all mass media is irrevocably biased, because they are organizations designed more for profit, or achieving a definable goal, than for delivering gold-edged facts. The "media" is made up of human beings, and everyone of them are biased in someway. The stories assigned and published by editors reflect their own agenda. Every word and sentence a reporter writes is colored by their own prejudices. Veteran news people know that finding and reporting "the truth" is a virtual impossibility, so the best of them do the best they can.
There is no single media in a pluralistic society, but many individual organizations competing for the attention of the largest market share they can get. If real news were the goal then its doubtful that the great majority of news stories would ever be published. The goal is delivery of an audience to those who pay the bills.
Who is that? Well, advertisers are the principle bank role and they only care about one thing and that is energizing consumers to buy their product. Advertisers care less about the content than in the size and demographics of the audience. Some media organizations are "owned" by a Partisan interest, but they are relatively rare. The best example might be Al Jazeera. It exists not to make a profit, but to advance the cause of the world's Islamic community and Movement. There is Voice of America, another non-profit media outlet that is intended to pierce the veil of censorship in dictatorships. Around the time when an American national political campaign is being waged, a number of media organizations increase. They generally claim to be unbiased and devoted entirely to providing the facts that main-stream organizations fail to pursue. They claim to be unaffiliated and unbiased, but the bills are paid quietly by the zealots of each of the Parties. Some really are secretly controlled by the campaign they favor, but others carefully disassociate themselves to preserve the illusion that they have no biases. BS.
Political news is vital to the extremists of all Parties, and all Parties/candidates cynically use the "news" to persuade and exhort support. The "news" is an inexpensive way of attacking and discrediting the opposition without the candidates being held accountable for uncivil behavior. "Leaks" and inside information gleaned from "opposition research" is secretly fed to editors and reporters whose biases are known. That's all that's necessary to give wings to new stories that often have little or no importance.
Alright, being a Conservative and a registered Republican my writing tends to agree with the conservative and republican points of view. If the GOP didn't pretty much reflect my opinions and views, then I wouldn't be a Republican. I'm biased in favor of the Party that most nearly agrees with my political philosophy, and that is the Federalism of the Founders written into the Constitution. I try to honestly express my opinions, and the reasons I hold them. I very seldom even cite any news story, political comment, or poll. Virtually nothing published during a heated political campaign can be relied upon, so I take none of it very seriously. What I look for, and draw my conclusions, views and opinions from are fundamental and less misleading evidence. The public record, especially that portion of the public record that covers what a candidate/party actually did when the Press wasn't looking is more reliable than the very best and "non-biased" news report. I look for character as revealed in the willingness of a person to do the "right thing" regardless of risk to their personal interests. The greater the risk, and the individual's way of dealing with it, is to me important. What did the individual do in difficult and stressful situations? Did they step forward and assume leadership and responsibility, did they cut and run, or did they hem and haw and eventually go along with the popular reaction of their group? Before the world was looking, did the individual exhibit a strong core of values that reflect the political philosophy that I believe is best for the nation, or were their values "soft", or were their values antithetical to those I personally hold dear?
These measures are almost entirely independent of any single report, and can be applied by anyone regardless of their political philosophy. Another person holding different political values than I do might quite legitimately come to a different set of conclusions, and opinions. Those who allow themselves to become emotionally entrapped by the foolishness surrounding political campaigns, the True Believers, may be the majority, but that has little to do with the fundamentals that, in my opinion, should fuel our national debate.