I think you're probably right that we can't have a fruitful debate on this, for whatever reasons.

I think finding bias in something shows the bias of the commentator more often than finds the truth of a reporters motives. Is your suggested rewrite more complete than the original writing? Sure. But it's also longer and factually similar. You see liberal bias on the reporter's part, I see the usual bias towards brevity, which is not ideological.

The word duly, of course, means timely. And I read the papers last month and saw plenty of articles about SBVT. I don't have Lexis-Nexis access (nor, honestly, the wherewithal to trawl through it) to compare coverage, but for every MRC stat there's a progressive outfit with an opposing number. I'm not sure whether you want the media to report on the he-said, he-said arguments, but as a rule I think we can agree that this type of reporting would not be good policy.

I hope you appreciate that the stats you cite come from NRO and the MRC, two entities that are part of that vast rightwing communications strategy I was talking about. There's nothing wrong with those entities, as I said, but that's exactly indicative of the point I was making. I don't think it can be questioned that there are large echo-chamber effects on both sides. I've certainly gotten caught up in it at times. But I really think you need to recognize that just because the media doesn't do everything you want it to, that doesn't make it liberal bias. The media doesn't do nearly enough in my eyes, too, but I wouldn't characterize the nebulous media monolith as having conservative bias.

And of course you would never catch me or my left-turn only car at a wholesale store that undermines local economies ;)

Bil,

But the way in which one enables brevity is among the ways in which one evinces bias. I'd be mighty impressed, for example, if you could produce a mainstream media quotation in which brevity made the president/Republicans/conservatives look better.

To run with what's on the table, in the meantime, let me rewrite my alternative phrasing thus:

But his medals have been challenged in ads by some veterans who don't support him.

Equally brief, and bias free.

As for "duly," my dictionary defines it as "in a due manner or time" (m-w.com). The emphasis accords with the way that, as an editor, reader, and writer, I've always understood the word to be used, and I have to admit that it sounds like spin for you to restrict the meaning to time, especially while asking me to accept the existence of opposing numbers on faith.

Moving on, it isn't even that the media doesn't do "enough" to bolster my side. Haven't you seen the insider admissions of bias? The stats about journalists' personal politics? The insider suggestions that the media can be counted on to give Kerry 15 points? There is, of course, an echo chamber effect, but I don't think it overstepping rhetorical bounds for me to request that you open my eyes to contrary evidence from outside of mine. Vague appeals to nebulosity don't cut it.

And, well, of course, the jibe is that one would expect an owner of a SAAB to have the good fortune to be able to subsidize the quaintly inefficient local stores that those on the paycheck-to-paycheck side of the line can't afford to patronize. ;o)

Many people have made this point, but the media in general would be better off if they dropped their pretensions of neutrality, and just acknowledged that they write/broadcast from a particular point of view. Like the British papers (the Beeb is a different story). Then there would a) be more competition, which would lead to b) less laziness, and c) a more honest discussion of ideas and events. I really think that the reason so many liberal/lefties hate Fox and talk radio and bloggers is simply because they're lifting the curtain, so to speak, by demonstrating just how biased the MSM is, and that there is a large market for alternative points of view. It's not comfortable when your monopoly comes crumbling down...

One of the reasons Michael Dukakis lost in 1988 was that his campaign was ridiculed by the mainstream press. Same for Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George McGovern in 1972. The mainstream press wasn't exactly friendly toward Al Gore's 2000 race, either.