Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Most of the liberal media is dishonest about their party affiliations, and that is in fact how it is working in the real world.

I'll give credit to those in the liberal media that are actually open about their bias, but they are a small minority of the liberal media as a whole. I don't have as much of a problem with them. I don't agree with their politics or their reasoning, but if they are open about their preferred party then I'll put them on the same page as I would Fox News.

> And there is hardly any real European-style pro-liberalism media in the US.

Here we have yet another comment that references European liberalism, and I don't know what this is being brought up. I am not addressing European politics or their media.

I never claimed that there was.

> And the idea that news media that doesn't even TRY to be impartial is more trustworthy than those who do make that effort and expect that of themselves and each other is an equally damning fallacy.

I never claimed that it makes them more trustworthy. The only effect that declaring bias has is to enable the reader to weigh the writer's bias against their claims.

> When a member of the "liberal media" makes a factual error they generally own it, retractions are published, apologies are made, and when the mistake is wilful people are suspended or fired. Their entire reputation is bound up in being accurate and truthful: they have a lot to lose.

False. I see factual errors frequently. Retractions and apologies are seemingly only made when the error is of no benefit to perpetuate. When the error supports their political bias, corrections are seemingly only made when the error becomes known to the public at large. Similarly, willfully generated errors that support the party are seemingly only punished when the nature of the matter become known to the public, and punishment is needed to maintain the appearance of credibility.

Their "reputation" for being accurate and factual is quite low actually. I'm sure you'd like to blame that on "fake news" and "alternative facts", but the fact of the matter is that the degree of their accuracy and truthfulness is quite apparent, and that's why the only people that take them seriously are people who either those who don't know any better or those who intentionally want to hear their liberal bias because it reinforces their own views.

> When a member of FoxNews, Breitbart, etc. makes a mistake as far as I can tell no apology is issued, no admission is made, no one is held accountable, regardless of whether the mistake was an oversight or accident, or was purposeful.

You are actually describing the media as a whole. The liberal media is no different. They are all political propaganda machines whose primary goal is to support their respective party.

> Where does their legitimacy as news outlets come from?

The arrival of Fox News filled a great void in the mainstream media. Their legitimacy comes from the fact that they report things that the liberal media will not, therefore they serve a legitimate purpose. Some of these inconvenient truths that they reveal are important facts the American people need to know in order to be able to make an informed decision about what's really going on. Not all of what they report is important though, nor is everything that they report a actual fact. But if I at least know what they want me to believe, I can weigh their "facts" with their intent.

> being appalled at the idea of Donald Trump becoming the President of the United States does NOT prove that you're a liberal. The number of conservatives who publicly disavowed him was completely unprecedented.

I never disputed either of those facts.