Cue the bellyaching on Fox News.

I don't believe in any sort of institutional liberal media bias. If one existed, I and just about everyone I know in this profession would have to be in on it, and we're all just way too stubborn and mule-headed to be herded together for any sort of ideological conspiracy. (Actually, that's not really my reason for not believing in the whole "liberal media" idea. That would take a lot longer to explain, but this is a blog, and I'm lazy.)

Still, I was a little taken aback at Slate's voluntary internal poll of its staff. Of the 57 people who chose to respond, 55 are voting for Obama. (McCain ties with Bob Barr--yes, Bob Barr--for second.) Granted, Slate is not part of the mainstream media, but...wow.

Slate's editor, David Plotz, tries to explain why. Its media critic, lone Barr voter Jack Shafer, tries to offer some better explanations. Both of them have some good thoughts, too, on the reality of what's often perceived as the "liberal media" (though Plotz's thoughts are actually Michael Kinsley's).

Though it's absurd for any publication--liberal-leaning or not--to have this kind of political uniformity among its staffers, I have to give Slate some credit: as Shafer notes, it has been a remarkably open forum for conservative, libertarian and utilitarian thought in addition to liberal ideas. Anything counterintuitive but worth consideration has a place in the marketplace of ideas, and Slate seems to be the internet's headquarters for those kinds of ideas, regardless of their political stripe.

Not sure I've ever seen that dateline in the Times before.

So I got a couple of phone calls and an e-mail today from an assistant with a national NPR show who wanted to talk to me about the relationship between Somalis and Latinos in the workplace.

First, I thought, why the heck would they want to talk to me, who had written exactly zero articles on the subject? (It was because I had once written a story on conflict between Somalis and Sudanese.)

Second, I thought, that seemed like a really random topic. I know we had our prayer dispute, but a national discussion on the relationship between Somalis and Latinos. Why those two groups?

Then I came home and saw that this was on the front page of today's New York Times. Ohhhhhh. That explains a lot.