In my business the most often heard complaint is one of liberal bias in the media.
Examples are cited over and over again about favoritism, most perceived and some real, being showered on Democrats and liberal causes.
In a strange, ironic display of friendship, most of the barbs come from a cadre of those I consider to be among my best buddies. They seem to delight in demonstrating how their claims of bias are correct and I am wrong.
That's because I contend that most evidence of media bias shows my business as often sloppy but not purposely slanted -- that, as a group, we are neither clever nor well-organized enough to succeed in a coordinated effort to perpetrate such a ruse.
I've been waiting all week for them to send notes about last Sunday's New York Times, considered by them to be the worst example of a liberal press.
There was lots of criticism of the president and his administration in the paper's coverage that day.
If you only read the opinion section you would have seen the likes of Frank Rich taking wide swipes at President Obama for his decision to send 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan.
Wrote Rich, "Obama's speech, for all its thoughtfulness and sporadic eloquence, was a failure at its central mission. On its own terms, as both policy and rhetoric, it didn't make the case for escalating our involvement in Afghanistan. It's doubtful that the president's words moved the needle of public opinion wildly in any direction for a country that has tuned out Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq alike while panicking about where the next job is coming from."
Actually, the Obama decision did move the needle of public opinion. National polls indicate that while Democrats' opinion of him dipped on this issue, his stature with Republicans rose. The net total was a gain in public opinion regarding his handling of the war in Afghanistan.
Overall, his poll numbers for total job performance are falling and now rest at 50 percent approval rating or below.
My guess is that his standing, at least on the issue of war, will rise after Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech Thursday. He defended past administrations' military successes providing safety and stability throughout the world.
"Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this," Obama said. "The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms."
Later in the speech his declarations were even stronger. "We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend," he said. "And we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it is easy, but when it is hard."
Wrote a New York Times reporter: "The president conceded that there was 'a deep ambivalence about military action today,' which he said was rooted in 'a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.' But he offered a forceful defense of the United States, saying that the lessons of history should ease those suspicions."
It will be hard for my conservative friends to twist those quotes.
And back to the Sunday edition of the Times, there were other voices skeptical and critical of the president and his administration.