I see that you practice selective reading too, similar to your conclusion about proper definitions, you don't look at the entire picture before forming or writing an opinion.
The article was an attack on liberals, what else is new?
That is all Coulter can do, and she uses Rush as just another opportunity to grind her ax.
The fact is that nearly all media in this day and age is about money, ratings, subscriber-ship, sensationalism, etc., not a political bias.
This attempt by the conservatives to brand the media biased is nonsense, the media's only real bias is toward making money. Ownership of major media is by corporate America (see NBC and GE, ABC and Disney, ABC and ESPN, Time Warner, etc.) who have a bias toward profits over morals, political party, etc.
The media would have been all over any self appointed moralist preach who was a liberal, if their private life could be sensationalized via a drug scandal or blatant hypocrisy.
Oh wait, liberals and democrats don't preach religious based morality to the masses, do they?
So the media, who covers Michael Jackson, Madonna, Brittany, etc. and their every faux pas, wouldn't try to make money off of a scandal the proportions of Rush, simply because the guilty party was democrat or liberal?
The firing of Rush by ESPN was covered because it was news and related to racism. If Dusty Baker had been fired by the Cubs for his racist comments about whites in the outfield on a sunny day, the media would have had a similar firestorm, as it was that event was very controversial and drew lots of attention.
Rush deserves everything he gets, because of his elevated hypocrisy, and Coulter's attempt to blame the media, Clinton, etc. only underscores how indefensible Rush really is.
The article was not about the media, nor really about Rush.