Well, first of all - to make the claim that the media leans more to the left than to the right is vastly debatable (to say the least). Just pick your topic - abortion, women's rights, gay marriage, stem cell research, immigration and do your homework, and you'll find both sides providing articles, news stories, criticisms and attempts to sell their viewpoints. But thats even beside the point - as soon as you find a newspaper or station giving their opinion on the matter (like Fox News DOES do so very well - but not to say that other stations don't do it - MSNBC, CNN, they all do it (aside perhaps, from BBC)), than it isn't news anymore - its someone else's opinion.
The reason Fox News is worth mentioning, is that they hold a large sum of the fault of what we see today in terms of news media skewing events to favor a political agenda. This goes back to when Reagan sat in office, and Ruport Murdoch took the helm of Fox - the trouble is that this kind of influence and opinionated news provided for great numbers in ratings - forcing other news networks, like CNN and NBC, to play the same game to maintain their numbrers - and what you see today is what we have - whats objective anymore? Is anyone actually doing journalism anymore? The documentary
Outfoxed does a good job at making this point - call it liberal bias or left wing, or what have you - it only encourages the game...
You bring up ID. I assume your point of how it isn't heard in the NYTimes or some other 'left' media source is a comment on how specific issues 'intentionally' don't get any time. Well, ID (or rather, creationism, as ID is merely a new form of it) has actually had its time - for thousands of years in fact, depending on how you look at history and peoples' understanding of things. Unfortunately for creationism, science has made vast improvements by leaps and bounds to our understanding of reality and the way the universe works (and in a relatively short period of time) so much so that it has been able to explain much about things like how we might have gotten here (without the expression of a deity, or a creator, or intelligent designer).
As we keep on learning and developing a better understanding of things, we often leave behind ideas or concepts or beliefs which no longer hold any relevance or meaning as we have been able to (with the help of things like the scientific method, facts and evidence) determine better, more accurate solutions or alternatives to those ideas, concepts and beliefs. Would anyone maintain, today, that the earth is flat? Some people actually do - but certainly the majority of us now know better and find no need to push the idea of a flat earth anymore.
I see ID in the exact same way - it's had its opportunities to sell itself again and again - both in the scientific community AND in courts of law. It has been clearly unsuccessful. It has failed in providing the kind of evidence necessary to support itself in both of those forums. It hasn't even been able to rid itself of its original premise - it is religious in origin.
"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)
"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)
"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)
"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86—87)
"ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89)
"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." (page 132)
From the Dover vs Kitzmiller decision which you can find
here.
Behe himself conceded in the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
You can read more of his peer-review controversy through his last book
here.
So, why won't you see any articles in the NYTimes on ID? Probably the same reason you don't see any articles on a flat earth.
,( the Darwinists are smarter too 
) . But I didn't bother reading it only grazing over it as it has the same bitter taste and stink of Darwinists writing an article about the powers of natural selection and random mutation to create spaceships. Its not only an attack against conservatives, its an attack against religion, creationists and also intelligent design proponents, it is quite obvious. Apparently, when I read the following statement: 
that they used a biased sample rate in the study, where it wasn't in any case random, more of a hand picked sample based on location/region and population, but thats another story altogether. 