Glenn Greenwald makes a terrific case that the "liberal media" outlet, the Washington Post, actually does much more to give a soap box to conservatives than to liberals:

He points out that of the eight op-eds and opinion pieces they published that day, two were by former Bush officials, one by a former Reagan official, one by two prominent right-wing politicians, one by a neocon, one by the CEO of an energy company, one by a defender of right-wing military coup leaders, and one by a liberal. Six championed part of the right-wing agenda, one pushed something like centrism, and one pushed a left-wing view. Collectively, it was a very conservative batch.

And the rightward tilt isn't a single-day exception. Greenwald's point is correct, that they regularly give more space to conservatives than liberals, and that the editorial board itself leans right, at least on foreign-policy/war/security issues.

Certainly there are liberal media outlets in this country: "The Nation," for example. And there are outlets that give soap boxes to the left and right but significantly more often to the left: "Salon.com," for example. But I'm glad someone is pointing out how sometimes outlets that the conventional wisdom has labeled "liberal" are anything but. The Washington Post is a great example. To a lesser extent, so are CNN and the NYT.