Media Bias- a Debate on Misanthrope

I debated a fellow blogger on http://tonermishap.blogspot.com/. No one goes to my site but I want to post it here anyways. Here is mine first, and then above I will give the Misanthrope's perspective.

The national news media in this country are liberal. It’s a cliché now, the “liberal media.” “Cliché” status usually reduces something to “tall tale” status but this is certainly not the case here.
What the media thinks is important and what they choose to report everyday is almost certainly following an agenda. They don’t care about giving us an accurate picture of anything.
Let’s take the latest Ohio Vote certification protests from some democrats.NBC News anchor Brian Williams used this as his tease for the NBC Nightly News, “Protesting the vote: Congress forced to interrupt its ceremonial counting of the electoral votes because of problems on Election Day in Ohio."
Is this is an accurate picture of what went on? How many times must I read the headlines of stories or the first few paragraphs and not get an accurate perspective of the story? It is clearly intended to give the problems credibility that the story did not go on to actually destroy as it should have. Even John Kerry recognizes who won and that he won legitimately.
I am a journalism student and one of the first things you learn is the upside down pyramid. Important things go first and you work your way down. Can I chronicle how many times I see the “other” (non-liberal) side stuffed down at the end of a story? Can I chronicle how often the argument is mischaracterized or not legitimized even at the end of the story?
Not in this essay I can’t. The fact is when 34% of national media is liberal and 7% are conservative compared to 20% liberal and 33% conservative of the American population, then I think there is a problem. Not only that, but 80% of editorial endorsements from newspapers endorsed John Kerry in the election. 80%?!?
My journalism professor is admittedly a moderate but also admitted to voting for John Kerry. He even diagrammed for us in class one day the way the Detroit News’ opinion section favored a pro-Kerry column over a pro-Bush one. The theme was crossing parties.
Former Republican Governor of Michigan William Milliken endorsed John Kerry while some other democrat guy from New York endorsed Bush.The New York guy’s opinion was on the bottom half of the page with a smaller and much less intriguing headline and we inspected the entire page and pulled out a million other subtle things like the fact that no one in Michigan knows who the New York guy is so his credibility is not near as much as a former republican governor who endorses Kerry.
My professor went on to explain as evidence that a lot of his colleagues came up to him during the day noting how Milliken endorsed Kerry. He also noted that none of them read or paid attention to the column below it…
…because no one in metro Detroit cares. I can’t even remember the guy’s name. They will claim that it is fair because they offered two sides, but this is the classic example of media bias. They give more credibility to liberal things by either running more stories on them, in subtle ways like who they interview for each side, or what facts they put in for each side.
What can I say though? Is this anecdotal evidence? Yes. But when 80% of national newspaper editors endorse one candidate, and liberals outnumbers conservatives 5 to 1 in the media, I guarantee I can find five examples a day of liberal media bias.