I did the same a year ago, largely agree with this, though I would note that it has been extremely useful to follow journalists (and comedy people/funny users). Specifically in regard to journalists however, I feel, just barely, that its worth it. One is able to gain a sense of what these people actually feel, away from an editorial board. Which is both enlightening and highly useful, if you actually devote time to reading journalism. Its also been very useful for organizing, as in, "there is a rally ya'll, come to such and such, like, now". More than once I've missed emails or other communications that would have pulled me into an action, meeting or other event but saw references to it on twitter and was able to make it at the last minute.
One interesting comment during the debate was that many (liberal) journalists use Twitter as a side platform on which they feel comfortable voicing more personal views. While it is an acceptable practice in their circles, conservative readers often point to those tweets as evidence of liberal bias in the industry. Regardless of the professional ethical consensus, it may be a cause of distrust, and suggests a general problem of liberal journalists preaching to the choir.
Eh, I'm kind of in the Colbert (although far more to the left) view of "reality has a well known liberal bias". It was a great joke, and I think got to the heart of the screeching about "bias" from "conservatives" (reactionaries). I find the idea that there is a neutral impartial view laughable, honestly. But then, I'm a commie, so shrug.
A final thought as well, I think, whatever your politics, that much of the liberal bias talk from the right, especially the now unmasked far right, was simply language policing. It was an attempt to set the terms of the debate and pull the frame as far right as possible, which seemed to have been largely successful in my opinion. Thanks for the link and the comment, I'll check it out!
I get the idea behind the "reality has a well known liberal bias" shibboleth. I think, however, that a more accurate and less self-serving formulation is that reality is non-partisan. Reality doesn't care about anyone's cherished political views.
It's certainly contributed to the irreparable ending of the relationship between conservatives and the MSM (to the detriment of both, and society itself). But conservative journalists and pundits are no less shy about spouting off, provided they work for a conservative outlet. I think what you don't see is journalists at mainstream (read: liberal) outlets who happen to be conservative, instead of token conservative pundits like @DouthatNYT, expressing their views publicly.
