The CNBC debate made it next to impossible for the media to claim there's no left wing bias in the press, and while Joe Scarborough has been good on and off, he totally gets pwned here by none other than Hugh Hewitt...

I don't think that is what is going on here at all, we do not want to encourage the media to unify against Republicans and protect Democrats. We do not want to engage in the knifing of our candidates, and ignore over here [Hillary Clinton's] NDA that [was recently recovered by the Washington Free Beacon], a whole set of questions that haven't been answered yet, 18 USC1924 which Mrs. Clinton almost certainly violated. We do not want to be part of that gang.

You're so wrong, the Hindenburg Debate of two weeks ago, was good for the Republican party general by exposing completely to Democrats, Republicans and Independents, that Republicans face a headwind...And it is very useful for me to come on a show like this and say: "Hey folks, look over here there are two major Hillary stories that no one is covering while we're trying to find Ben Carson's friend from 40 years ago. Eventually it adds up into a narrative...

Joe then mumbled something about putting "his neck on the line every day," demanding an apology and recognition for his bravery in standing up to the media. Which was just...seriously buddy, get over yourself.

Stay classy, Joe Scarborough.

As for the bias itself?

And self-proclaimed Democratic journalists outnumber Republicans by 4-to-1, according to research by Lars Willnat and David Weaver, professors of journalism at Indiana University. They found 28 percent of journalists call themselves Democrats, while just 7 percent call themselves Republicans — though both numbers are down from the 1970s. Those identifying as independent have grown.

But... but what do those numbers really mean?

Those numbers are what we call "statistically significant." What does this mean for you, the American viewer? To put it simply, anytime you watch the news, read a paper or listen to the radio, which the exception of single digit percentage-points, you are listening to a leftists presentation of the facts.

How does that matter? Allow me to point you to some absolutely, verifiably false myths that have been so pervasive in our current state of "journalism" that many people believe them to be true.

1. You probably think there's a male-female wage gap. That women earn 77¢ for every dollar a man does, right? Wrong. It's entirely false, and easily disproved (we did so at great length, here). Yet the media still reports it as fact.

2. You probably believe that half of all marriages end in divorce, right? Wrong. It's never been the case. Not even close, according to the United States Census Bureau. Yet the media still cites it as true.

3. You probably believe that Barack Obama was an intellectual heavyweight, that he was at the top of his class and graduated Columbia and Harvard law with honors and citations in the law reviews, right? None of that is true. At least, we have no idea. As Dr. Ben Carson has pointed out, his records are sealed (watch the awesome video of him calling the media out on the issue here).

4. You probably believe that we never found WMD's in Iraq right? Only we did. Lots of them.

These are just a few examples. The big problem with bias is not the proactive agendas that you'll often hear, it's the ones that you don't. The lies by omission are far more frequent and damaging to integrity of journalism. Tell this to a leftist however, and they'll simply tell you they don't believe you. Ah, journalism