Please read this story and tell me in what possible way this can be interepreted other then as proof that there is a bias against liberalism in the establishment media?

Commentary: The Surrender Of MSNBC Written by Rick Ellis, Wednesday, February 25th, 2003 While the official announcement wasn't a surprise to anyone working at the network, MSNBC officially canceled the primetime show "Donahue" on Tuesday, citing disappointing ratings. ... Although Donahue didn't know it at the time, his fate was sealed a number of weeks ago after NBC News executives received the results of a study commissioned to provide guidance on the future of the news channel. That report--shared with me by an NBC news insider--gives an excruciatingly painful assessment of the channel and its programming. Some of recommendations, such as dropping the "America's News Channel," have already been implemented. But the harshest criticism was leveled at Donahue, whom the authors of the study described as "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace." The study went on to claim that Donahue presented a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war......He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

Did you read that? This memo specifically says that allowing a "liberal antiwar agenda" onto the airwaves is a bad thing. In other words, Donohue wasn't fired because his ratings were bad (Chris Mathews are as bad, if not worse). He was fired because the execs at MSNBC would be embarrased to have to defend anti-war rhetoric appearing on their network during a time of war. And this would be bad because...? Hell if I know.