The MSM, particularly network television, was very disturbed by conservative criticism over their treatment of President Nixon during the Watergate era. The media were well aware the country leaned to the right, and their audience really didn't want to hear the catalogue of usurpations and other assorted outrages that was flowing out of the investigation. When Carter became President and the Iranian hostage crisis broke, the people were dutifully reminded every night on Nightline how many days the US had been humiliated, even though Carter pretty much had his hands tied militarily unless he was willing to risk the lives of the hostages. And when his desperate rescue mission failed, they gleefully reported over and over the grisly pictures of the servicemen who died during the attempt. There was plenty of legitimate reason to criticize Carter, particularly over the economy, but it was Iran that finished him off, unfairly.

Contrast this with the free ride Reagan got when the Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed, where 250 US servicemen were killed. Although Reagan could not be blamed for this fiasco, it had to be placed squarely on military commanders who had ignored an almost an identical attack on French soldiers that occurrred only days earlier, he still was the C-in-C and the responsibility was his. And I don't know about you, but I had a very uneasy feeling when we left Lebanon without avenging those boys.

When Iran-Contra broke out, along with the astonishing revelation that the President was defying clear Congressional mandates to fight an illegal war in Central America AND trying to finance it by selling weapons to the same terrorists he had promised us he would never negotiate with, the press essentially let it slide. The networks decided America wasn't ready for another Watergate, and impeachment was too terrible too contemplate so soon after Nixon.

Why? It wasn't politics at all. Reagan was a popular president, the nation was in one of its periodic conservative spasms, and the networks had learned their lesson: don't alienate your audience. It's not good for business. It was around this time that they stopped showing news on network TV, and we started getting those feelgood local TV-type stories about brave little kids with cancer, kittens rescued from trees, and hard-hitting in-depth reporting on celebrities.

Once Reagan was gone, the press shifted left by being critical of the first Gulf war, but soon gave that up when it learned the nation was pretty much behind it, and pretty happy with the way Bush I handled it. No one is against the wars you win. Especially not the press. You've covered the Clinton years pretty well with your post, but he was fair game not because he was liberal, but because he got an Oval Office blow job. Now THAT is guaranteed to bring in the viewers. What's political bias got to do with that?

As for Bush II--well, the press has learned its lesson. I disagree that the MSM has been pro-Bush II, as your source implies, but it is giving the people what they want to hear for reasons of its own, ratings. If Bush had been even remotely competent and moderately cogent, it would not have turned on him and alienated their conservative viewers. Of course, by this time, they were all watching Limbaugh anyway.

The problem with the networks (not the press in general) is not political bias, it is a desire to not offend or trouble their audience. It is bad for ratings. Infotainment Tonight and Excess Hollywood.