Liberal media bias is immediately clear to anyone who hasn't willfully suspended the use of their senses and logic. I occasionally see people try to argue against this, mostly embarrassing themselves in the Sisyphean effort. Here is an absolutely gem-like example from the largest purveyor of "news" in the world. This is not an opinion piece, but an un-bylined straight news report from the Associated Press about the guy who shot up the Family Research Council.
Traditional Values Coalition President Andrea Lafferty said FBI agents visited her group's Capitol Hill offices hours after the Wednesday morning shooting as part of their investigation. The next day, she said, members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force came by and confirmed that "our information was in his pocket," including the location of the group's offices.
"I was stunned," Lafferty told The Associated Press, adding that she believes her group may have been targeted.
It wasn't immediately clear if that was the case.
It wasn't immediately clear this was the case?...Wow. I guess he could have been going to head over there to join a Bible study group, or to look for a Christian girl to marry so he could be fruitful and multiply. But that is not why he had the info in his pocket and anyone with an above room temperature IQ knows that. Later in the same piece there is an even more egregious example of lipsticking this pig. They double down on dumb with this.
Corkins, whose parents said he strongly supported gay rights, had a backpack full of Chick-fil-A sandwiches and a box of ammunition when he said words to the effect of "I don't like your politics" and shot a security guard, authorities said...
It wasn't immediately clear why Corkins, 28, had the chicken sandwiches.
STFU! Seriously, it wasn't clear? It could not have been a whole lot more crystalline and transparent. How many freakin' articles did the AP write about Chick-Fil-A and gays in the past two months? I googled it and got 3,420,000 results. I think the even more amazing thing is attempting to not see the blisteringly obvious. If a guy in a Brooks Brothers suit carrying bag full of pot brownies walked into an Occupy Wall Street shanty town and started clubbing the denizens like harp seals while yelling "Occupy this, you dirty, nasty, patchouli-smelling hippies" I am pretty sure it would be a moment of stunning clarity, and there would be tons of investigative reporting on the clubber's hedge fund connections.
When the neo-nazi loser went on his rampage, we learned about his military experience, what jobs and what units he had. Then we got an earful of the crap white power bands he was in, and the Southern Poverty Law Center let us know they had an eye on him. The AP had a headline that said "Sikh temple shooter a white supremacist". But let a group the SPLC calls haters get attacked, and we get radio silence. A brief mention that he volunteered at an LBGT etc. place, but no headlines screaming "Christian group shooter said to be gay avenger".
I think the responsible thing to do is to treat these types of events with an honest appraisal. It is fair to say that the white power wastoid probably shot brown people in turbans for his own ignorant, misguided reason. It is equally fair to say that the gay volunteer guy who walked in to a place demonized for opposing gay marriage with a bag full of iconic pieces of chow associated with opposing gay marriage and shot up the place while saying "I don't like your politics" probably wasn't there about Ryan's plan for Medicare.
AP didn't have to say anything editorially after they noted the guy had a note w/ another target in his pocket and a satchel full of chicken sammiches. But it beggars belief to make the statement that it wasn't immediately clear why something quite immediately clear happened.