Tapper and "Actual objective-facing journalist" should not be used in the same sentence without a negation, dude. He's very conservative, and has used falsehoods to promote it in the past. When confronted with his falsehoods, he gave a bullshit response along the lines of "well, it fit the paradigm" or something of that nature. Tapper is, in fact, as ideological as Taibbi and Palast.

That's the thing with ideology. It exists. That the reporter is ideological does not negate the quality of their reporting. Tapper has done good work, just as Palast and Taibbi. The quality of their work should be determined not by the ideological content, but by the confirmation of the facts reported. If the facts are shoddy, so is the reporting.

With this, I think we can narrow down your list to just one. (I'm going to throw out the "don't really know it" crowd, since it doesn't matter one whit; their bias will show eventually).

MSNBC presents as slightly left, but with a corporatist slant, just as Fox presents as right with a corporatist slant. They are the left and right hands of a corporate body, no more. And that point, I am sorry to say, was what I wanted to read more about in Infamous Scribblers. How much did money slant news back then, or were conditions different in substantial enough ways?

I'm a bit busy right now with a project, but I should get to that later.