Now she's a fucking neurologist

Media matters:

Economics of Contempt makes the obvious, common sense argument for why liberal media bias almost has to exist:

I'd reinsert the link, but Megan the genius linked to her Google reader, not the blog post she's quoting. The post to which she refers is from a blog called Economics of Contempt. Now, despite the name of the blog it's actually written by a neurologist in charge of a research lab, which is why their conclusions here are of the slightest value.
Or not. From the blog's "About Me":

I'm a lawyer with a background in economics and, unfortuately [sic], politics.

Which is to say, prepare for the irony. The EoC post reads

The issue of media bias has been debated and studied for decades, and both sides can cite academic research that supports their argument. But the process of defining and measuring "media bias" is so inherently subjective that I don't think it's possible to conduct an objective empirical study.

Sounds reasonable, right? But here's the next line

I tend to think there is a "liberal media bias," based on two facts. First, surveys have consistently shown that journalists are far more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.

He goes on to cite one of countless studies showing reporters tend to identify as Democrats. He does not, of course, follow up with mention of the consistent accompanying result that a majority of editors and publishers identify as Republicans, or the fact that these folk are the ones who actually control the news being published. That would be honest, and wouldn't play into the meme being pushed.

So given that (1) journalists are overwhelmingly Democrats, and (2) party affiliation dramatically affects the way our brains interpret political news, is it really possible that there isn't a liberal media bias?

No empirical study of newspaper stories or talking heads on TV is ever going to be able to objectively determine whether there's a liberal media bias, because what people think constitutes "liberal bias" depends on their party affiliation also. I don't perceive a liberal media bias, but then again, I'm a Democrat [Mhm. And Megan is a lefty], so my brain would presumably interpret political news the same way a biased liberal media would.

But if we know that the inputs are heavily biased, it's very likely that the output is biased as well.

He's basing this claim on a study that showed admitted political partisans tend to base their judgments of the claims of politicians on predetermined political affiliations and subsequent emotional responses. I'd be interested to know whether the study controlled for the actual empirical truth values of the claims being responded to, as Kerry tended to lie a lot less often than Bush, which could skew the results, but then I'm probably being emotional in my attachment to reality. The only way to judge media bias is by political affiliation, not by, say, factual accuracy. Media Matters is just as biased as Rush, end of story.
I could go on about the irony of calling a massive group biased based on one's own inherent biases and a willingness to leave out facts which don't support your conclusion, but we need to get back to Megan and her lecture on neuropsychology.

affect the way their brains interpret political news. In his book [the biggest sic in the history of sics. Megan actively chooses not to edit her work, or even proofread it. Why should she? She's paid either way, why do more work?]
One of the more interesting results of current neuropsychological research is that some scientists think that, at least for hot-button issues, we reason backwards: we decide what we believe based on our emotional needs, and then figure out a reason that we should believe it. Regardless, I think EofC makes an excellent point: based on what we know about journalists and political cognition, it's very unlikely that there isn't substantial bias in both academia and the media. I also think there's no way to develop any direct test of media bias that will satisfy people who want to disbelieve in it.

Which is to say that according to Megan's biases, other journalists are biased.
She dresses her biases up with an unsourced reference to the results of a field of science which is still emerging from a pair of disciplines she is utterly unschooled in, a reference which, if it actually exists, came to her via academia and the media, so Megan is right, dammit. These biases corrupt the work of others, not her. And editors, publishers, and reporters' sense of professionalism, training, and ability to see past their own kneejerk responses are all negligible influences on the media compared to the political values of inherently cynical, mistrustful people.
After all, look at the free rides Gore and Kerry enjoyed, and how little attention was paid to the factually bankrupt swift boat vets. And, of course, there's that whole WMDs in Iraq thang. But why let what actually happened bias you, when a business school grad with a BA in English who blogs about economics can use her vast experience in the field of neuropsychology to show why you shouldn't listen to people who say things she disagrees with. Don't let your liberal bias for reality and facts get in the way of accepting Megan's understanding of a field she probably had to spellcheck the name of. She's not a liberal, so she's not biased, trust her.

Update:

I have to also note that Democrat and liberal are being conflated here by both EoC and Megan. This is what conservative Republicans do, and it's bullshit, especially in the current era when Bush's extremism and my way or the highway mentality and record of unmitigated failure have forced the country's political center back into the Democratic Party. Megan and EoC are guilty of begging the question in how they frame the issue.