A second major issue was whether hiring a conservative activist as a blogger was a reasonable stab at "balance" when there was no self-proclaimed liberal blogging away, as opposed to left-leaning journalists. I think that's a fair point, but I don't want to see washingtonpost.com or any other MSM outfit abandon efforts to include voices from the right.
First of all, WaPo does not have a “liberal bias”. In fact, they are more to the right side of the spectrum. They have shown this time and time again by labeling anyone who disagrees with a Bush policy, or an aspect of the Iraq war, as a liberal. Quite frankly, if you think that people are to the left because they do not agree with everything a president does, that means that you are not in the center.
I hope that more people with conservative, free-market or libertarian viewpoints decide to go into mainstream journalism to balance those of more liberal persuasions. But we can't force that to happen if that's not their goal.
And this, right here, is the reality of the liberal bias argument. The situation is the same for both universities and news outlets. If they have more liberal people working there, it is because more liberal people are applying for the job. If one of these places has a lot of liberal-leaning people, the remedy for conservative minded people is simple. Get an education in these types of things and then go apply there. Stop whining about “liberal bias”, because the problem is made by you, and you are the only ones that can fix it.