I'd argue that coincidence is sufficient to explain the conservative perception of liberal bias: Liberals and reporters do indeed both want to change the world, but it's a logical fallacy to assume that their reasons are at all the same, let alone identical.

I think Occam's Razor would tell you that reporters are just being reporters, and that adding layers of political motivation needlessly complicates the explanation.

"Conservative perception?" Okay, okay, whatever. This is like pulling teeth. If you want to believe most people in the media weren't tearing their hair out when Bush was declared the winner last November, fine. I didn't watch much TV news, but I saw enough to see the network anchors looking like someone had shot their dog.

The Mercury News has some good stuff in it, and their supporting graphics and charts, which the bastards don't put on line, are often worth the price of the paper alone.

Still, if it wasn't for the funnies...

In fact, the only thing I get the Sunday SF paper for is the funnies.

Sometimes I wonder why somebody doesn't just bite the bullet and put out an "all funnies" paper.

I think the rising stars of news are the local papers which, despite your theory, probably are no more conservative than the others. Here is where people get news they can use. The Palo Alto Daily and equivalents are free, and tell you what's happening where you live.

Not enough funnies, though.