(via Econlog)  When conservatives talk about pervasive liberal media bias and liberals scratch their heads and have no idea what they're talking about, it's often because of stories like this -

This transformation is no longer just about factory workers, whose ranks have declined by 5 million in the past 25 years as manufacturing moved to countries with cheaper labor. All kinds of jobs that pay in the middle range -- Clark's $17 an hour, or about $35,000 a year, was smack in the center -- are vanishing, including computer-code crunchers, produce managers, call-center operators, travel agents and office clerks.

The jobs have had one thing in common: For people with a high school diploma and perhaps a bit of college, they can be a ticket to a modest home, health insurance, decent retirement and maybe some savings for the kids' tuition. Such jobs were a big reason America's middle class flourished in the second half of the 20th century.

Now what those jobs share is vulnerability. The people who fill them have become replaceable by machines, workers overseas or temporary employees at home who lack benefits. And when they are replaced, many don't know where to turn.

The facts here are true and arguably bias free.   What's missing is the context - Arnold Kling posts the statistics from which chunks of the story are derived -

The middle hasn't been "squeezed" so much as "pushed up".  Sure, "Clark's" plastics manufacturing job has been hit but other jobs are popping up that WaPo doesn't appear willing to give too much credit to.   One underlying conceit is something Virginia Postrel beautifully illustrated (pun intended) -

Here's an interesting paradox at (as Grant McCracken would say) the intersection of economics and anthropology: All right-thinking humanistic people agree that it's better to spend your time and money on having good, meaningful experiences rather than acquiring material possessions. For consumers, then, intangibles are better --more culturally prestigious--than stuff. For producers, on the other hand, the hierarchy is reversed. It's better to make stuff than to provide services. "Good jobs" are in manufacturing. "Bad jobs" are in hotels. This cultural prejudice goes beyond wages; in fact, people will insist without checking that a service job like, say, giving facials, must pay badly, even when it doesn't.

Further "liberal bias" here isn't from the context-free reportage of just one side of the fact but rather the underlying tone of the piece.   It's laced with an unspoken assumption that without drastic, dramatic government help, that folks like "Clark" are simply doomed - particularly when there's a Republican in the White House.