The liberal mainstream media never ceases to amaze.

Even if one were to disregard the emails uncovered by WikiLeaks proving the “mainstream” media had colluded with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to propagate her candidacy, you’d think they must be aware of their obvious bias.

But two of these institutions included in the collusion, The New York Times and The Washington Post, recently claimed an absurdly delusional stance about how they treat the Trump administration versus a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration.

Washington Post Editor Marty Baron and CEO Mark Thompson of The New York Times believe their coverage is fair to the Trump administration.

Kelly Riddell of The Washington Times reported:

“’Washington Post Editor Marty Baron said this week that his paper is treating the Trump administration the exact same way it would a Clinton administration, and they’re absolutely not the opposition party.

‘The way I view it is, we’re not at war with the administration, we’re at work. We’re doing our jobs,” Mr. Baron said at the Code Media conference at the Ritz-Carlton in Dana Point, California, on Tuesday, adding he’d treat the Clinton administration the exact same way.

‘… as far as being the opposition, we’re not the opposition either. We’re independent. And I think we’ve reached a strange point, where just being independent — which the press should be — is portrayed as being opposition,’ Mr. Baron said.

That’s funny.  In November, the former CEO of NPR wrote in Vanity Fair that some days he feels as though The Post has become Breitbart for the left.

And Wednesday’s coverage exemplified his point.

On The Post’s online front page, all six featured stories involved President Trump, and all were negative.  Admittedly, the firing of Mr. Trump’s National Security Adviser Michael Flynn sent shock-waves throughout Washington, but there were other stories.

The same day, Mr. Trump had a very good meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Secretary of Defense James Mattis was meeting with NATO allies in Europe.  The U.S. stock market is soaring.

On Thursday, the coverage wasn’t much better. Of the four featured articles, all of them focused on Mr. Trump, one with the snarky headline: ‘Campaigning like it’s 2016: Trump stuck in a time warp.’

It’s hard to imagine Hillary Clinton would’ve been treated the same way — even though she too had low favorability numbers and was thought dishonest by the majority of Americans.

The New York Times — which ran a front-page analysis defending reporter bias in the age of Trump last summer — also feels its coverage of the administration is fair.

Earlier this month, the Times CEO Mark Thompson stopped by CNBC’s Power Lunch and explained how his paper played it straight.

‘We aim to be objective and to tell people straightforwardly what’s happening,’ he said.

Yet, it’s own public editor Liz Spayd, admitted The Times got so wrapped covering Mr. Trump’s daily controversies during the campaign, it missed the real story on why he resonated with voters.

‘… as the Times begins a period of self-reflection, I hope its editors will think hard about the half of America the paper too seldom covers,’ she wrote.

That has hardly happened.”

These are the same bias institutions that ran stories about the supposed incompetence of the Trump administration –  like the story based on an unsubstantiated claim that Trump’s staff was so incompetent, they had to work in the dark because they were too stupid to find the light switch.

Not only should the ridiculous slander these media institutions perpetuate be illegal, how is it even possible that they are so painfully oblivious to their hatred of the Trump administration?

Afterall, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.