The myth of "liberal bias"

Thanks to a post by mcjoan on the Daily Kos for quoting an article from Media Matters, comparing news coverage of the 1998 newsbreak of Bill Clinton's relations with Monica Lewinsky with the recent break of the NSA spying story:

All told, on January 22, 1998, the [NY] Times and the [Washington] Post ran 19 articles (five on the front page) dealing with the Clinton investigation, totaling more than 20,000 words and reflecting the words of at least 28 reporters -- plus the editorial boards of both newspapers.
In contrast, on December 17, the Times and the Post combined to run five articles about the NSA spying operation, involving 12 reporters and consisting of 6,303 words.

I suppose that there might be alternative readings of the situation to the scorecard offered by mcjoan:

We get most of The New York Time's editorial page (David Brooks doesn't count anymore, anyway), um, Salon, and well, the fake news shows on Comedy Central. Oh, and a few of the quiz shows on NPR. They get The New York Times news division, The Wall Street Journal, most of The Washington Post . . . , all of the broadcast and cable news shows, the wire services, and well, everything else.

My wife and I once noticed that NPR's "liberal bias" used to lie in the fact that they usually covered more than one side of a story--an expert and some mandatory hack from some Rightist think tank. It also seems clear that the Right manages to intimidate press coverage where it doesn't simply control it (see, recently, NPR). On the one hand, it is good to be clear that the "bias" is a myth-- to the contrary. On the other hand, to realize that we are struggling against genuine Fascisti: that is disturbing and even frightening.