Sad article... even sadder is Fox News' attempt to turn it into propoganda

[bu villain]

In answer to your question, "Do you believe that if all the MSNBC viewers who support Obama started watching Fox, they would stop being Obama supporters or vice versa?" The answer is that some, not all, would be influenced over time by a biased media that is not adhere to the basic fundamentals of journalism. You can see that if you look at our history, even over the last few years.

I certainly agree that media bias can and does have some affect on voting. What I don't agree on is that the effect is necessarily more pronounced in democratic/liberal voters.

On the second question, "does the administration get scrutinized and are the results easily available to the public?", the initial answer is yes, there is always someone looking closely into everything, and the data is usually available to the public; however, the discussion is about the mainstream public large media organizations, not small, independent ones. These large organizations have been avoiding some topics (like Benghazi) in the WH press conferences, and they have repeatedly (see the CNN video that I posted earlier) manipulated their "interpretation" of stories and events and the amount of their coverage of these stories/events to fall in line with the current Administration. This should concern you, as a free and unbridled press is one of the cornerstones that our forefathers based our American way-of-life upon.

Benghazi has been a major news story for many many months now so I wouldn't say they are avoiding it. There is a legitimate disagreement about the significance of it though and that is not purely a matter of political bias. If it were up to the current administration, there would be no coverage from anyone about Benghazi. Again, I don't disagree with you that the major media outlets as a whole are not living up to a high standard of journalistic excellence, I just disagree that the cause is primarily a political agenda.

Most of what we know is from whistle blowers..... if not for them, Obama and the media would still be lying to us. Obama does everything in his power to prevent whistle blowers from getting out and makes sure they will rot in prison of they do.

Yes, what you say about whistle blowers is true but whistle blowers have always been a major source for such news. I disagree that the media was lying to us before about say the NSA program. They were simply ignorant. Once a whistle blower emerged, they covered the story quite extensively. It is still a top topic in the mainstream media months after the story broke.

Fact: The Pew Research Center found that in the FINAL WEEK BEFORE VOTING of the last presidential campaign, MSNBC network did absolutely no negative stories about President Obama OR positive ones about Mitt Romney. MSNBC's coverage of Romney during the final week (68% negative with no positive stories), was far more negative than the overall press, and even more negative than it had been during October 1 to 28 when 5% was positive and 57% was negative.
Meanwhile, the coverage improved for a positive effect for Obama in the final week. From October 1 to 28, 33% was positive and 13% negative. During the campaign's final week, fully 51% of MSNBC's stories were positive while there were no negative stories at all.

The Study: Final Weeks in the Mainstream Press | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

As the article discusses though, some of the reason for that was due to horse-race coverage. Obama was leading in many polls so simply reporting those polls was taken as positive coverage for Obama and negative for Romney. This is not bias though. Now this does not say the trend doesn't clearly imply some bias, but it is not as skewed as the raw data would make you believe. It's also important to note that they compare Fox to MSNBC at the same time and you see a very similar skewing in the opposite direction. So if you ignore the very legitimate reasons why Obama might be getting more favorable coverage in the last week, how do you account for Fox's anti-Obama bias (as clear as MSNBC's) and still say the mainstream media has an Obama bias.

Why doesn't the press ask the hard questions in the WH press conferences? Watch one, and you will see that they don't dig for answers. Obama has made it clear that anyone that doesn't play by his rules (no tough questions) is out - and will be subject to a DOJ investigation (see FOX and CBS).
Why don't they ask him about entitlement reform? Congress is about to head into a new round of budget negotiations. Some Republicans leaders have suggested that they are willing to offer concessions on the budget sequester if Obama commits to entitlement reform. He has spoken in theory about making some cuts but have never presented a plan, on paper, and have rejected all suggestions, even the Simpson-Bowles commission. Why isn't the press asking the question of where is his plan to reform entitlements?

You answered your own question as to why the press isn't asking hard questions. But not wanting to jeapordize their access is not the same as being in love with the Obama administration.

One article that you might like: Media Bias and Voting

The introduction of FNC on cable had a small, but measureable effect on voting. It is not a stretch to say that the repetition of liberal media should also have a similar, but increased, effect.

I agree except I'm not sure why the "liberal media" would have an increased effect. Fox is the most watched news network in the country and it has a clear right wing bias as supported by both articles you posted earlier.