If there is one thing the 2016 election has shown, it s that there is no such thing as a liberal media bias. From free air time for Donald Trump to ridiculous, over sensationalized bad press for Hillary Clinton, the media conglomerates have shown there is a preferred candidate, and it certainly isn t the liberal one.Not only has broadcast media shown itself to be completely inept and biased in favor of Donald Trump, but print and digital media, which younger voters rely on more heavily than anyone else, has shown its true colors as well. It is not liberal, but it does have a bias, and it certainly isn t in favor of Hillary Clinton.It all stems from when the Associated Press released shock waves through the political establishment when it  reported  on the Clinton Foundation s alleged pay-for-play, hinting that Hillary Clinton used her power as Secretary of State to give preferential, special treatment to donors and heads of state involved with her family foundation. Similarly, the New York Times and Boston Globe picked up the story with eerily similar tones, calling on the Clinton Foundation to be shutdown, Clinton herself investigated, and castes doubts on her ability to be  ethical. Not surprisingly, Republicans pounced on the story. But even liberal hacks like Vice s Michael Tracey and IBT s David Sirota, who are openly to the left of Mrs. Clinton s political leanings, were calling for the secretary s head on a silver platter. Once again, the seeds of distrust among liberals were sown.Well, then the truth came out and it turns out the AP botched the story. As pointed out by AMERICAblog News editor John Aravosis the AP incorrectly reported that half of those who met with Clinton as cabinet secretary gave money to the Clinton Foundation. The Associated Press gave the number as 85 out of 154 people.It doesn t take a genius to see the one glaring giveaway: does anyone really think that Clinton, who was secretary of state for four years and had the record travel mileage and country visitation, met with only 154 people during her tenure? The fact is this: Clinton met, personally, with over 1,700 people as secretary of state, of which then only 85 were foundation donors, which equals a measly 5 percent.Aravosis also points out that the AP blew their  smoking gun  claim when referring to Muhammed Yunus, a major donor of the Clinton Foundation who was able to meet with Secretary Clinton herself. Considering Yunus has won an Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless efforts to reduce global poverty, and banking empowerment for poor people, it would seem almost normal for him to meet with Clinton (who made global poverty alleviation a staple in her smart diplomacy agenda at the State Department).My God, Hillary Clinton, whose job it is to work with other countries to tackle global issues (which includes alleviating poverty) met with a world renowned philanthropist who happened to give to her foundation (which also works to alleviate poverty)? Unheard of!Optics has apparently taken over true investigative journalism.So even with these shoddy examples provided by the Associated Press, that didn t stop the other  liberal  outlets like the New York Times from telling Clinton to sever ties with her foundation, and Boston Globe from calling on the foundation to be shutdown outright.And while all this was going on, it was actually discovered that only one candidate running for President of the United States was found to have engaged in an actual pay-for-play scheme with their foundation: Donald Trump.According to reports, Donald Trump s foundation illegally bribed Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi with $25,000 to drop a lawsuit pertaining to Trump University. The IRS fined the Trump foundation $2,500 for the act.Yet can anyone recall hearing about it? Which was blasted more all over the news? The  alleged  pay-for-play from Clinton that is not based on evidence, or the one where the IRS fined Trump for actually engaging in pay-for-play?Did the New York Times call on Trump to shutdown his foundation? Did the Boston Globe call on Trump to sever ties with it? Did anyone, from CNN to Fox News cast any doubt on Trump s unethical (and illegal) behavior of bribing an elected official?No, they did not. Even though the evidence is concrete, mainstream media will still use the word  allegedly  when pertaining to Trump, but will continue to call on Clinton to be investigated even with no evidence.And with that, the New York Times, Associated Press, Boston Globe, and other media elites should apologize to Clinton, denounce Trump, and move on unless any new evidence contradicts Clinton s claims (so far, nothing has).Featured image via Justin Sullivan/Getty Images