Religious Biased Media?

So, this morning on 1/1/11 (just fun to write)...
I was looking at CNN. I typically go to CNN as Fox is way to conservative for me and MSNBC is way to liberal for me. Although I know CNN is not moderate it isn't as militant about liberalism as MSNBC. Being a Christian I was interested by the article "11 Faith-based predictions for 2011".
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/01/11-faith-based-predictions-for-2011/?hpt=C2

I was surprised when I saw that the distribution of religions and the amount of comments with negative focus on evangelicals. I was glad to see that the first clergy citied was an evangelical.
The breakdown for religions are as follows:

- An Evangelical
- A Muslim
- A journalist who covers Catholicism
- A Humanist
- A Pomo (Post Modern or in this case Emergent Church Leader)
- A Jew
- A Mormon
- A Modern Polytheist (UU?)
- A Conservative Thinktank
- Wiccan
- The secretary general of a Saudi Prince's foundation

CNN says, "CNN Belief Blog asked 10 religious leaders and experts - plus one secular humanist."
So, a Conservative think tank, a journalist who writes for CNN about the Vatican, and an administrator for a Saudi Prince are "leaders or experts in religion?" Have any of the above had any type of schooling in theological studies of the various religions? How can they make predictions for those religions where as in the case of either the think tank or the journalist, they might not even be adherents of that faith. While you don't have to be an adherent to make a prediction, it would be good for you to be one in order to be a religious expert in the religion you are being cited for. I mean couldn't someone find a Catholic Bishop willing to forecast for the Catholicism. Also, why bring up humanism (which is technically not a religion) when you leave out Hinduism and Greek Orthodox. Both of which have larger backings than the Harvard Humanist... of course the Harvard part is why CNN cares.
Secondly, there are 5 instances where the evangelical church is referenced. 3 times are negative. The most negative is by the Don Miller. This is not surprising, as Don Miller is an emergent. Emergent leadership are normally evangelical ministers who became disillusioned by everything around them, so they rebelled against all of it. Some of the issues they raise are legitimate but some of it is just to disagree in order to disagree. Emergents embody Postmodern thought "everyone's truth is their truth" which is a logical fallacy. So, for Miller to be at odds with Evangelicals is not suprising. It is interesting that they were able to find a well-known voice in the emergent world but they could go to one in the Evangelical. Something makes me think this is not an accident.
Why does the media have to be this way. If you can't bring balance to something then don't do it. Stop trying to quietly push an agenda.