The number one news channel for decades has been Fox News. CNN has been bought out by a Trump supporting billionaire who has stated he wants to remake the channel in the image of Fox. So right off the bat, two of the most powerful channels, by a large margin, aren't just slightly conservative, but massively and unapologetically so. MSNBC is next up, and they advertise that they are "liberal", but that's more marketing than anything. When it actually comes time to stand up for a liberal or leftist interest, they consistently run conservative issue selection and framing, and then dress up the story reporting in "liberal" sounding language. That's not a liberal network, and even when they do act as one (and they sometimes do) they are no counter-balance to how right-wing Fox is. The fact that they fired Olbermann for making a personal donation to a Democratic politician should make it clear how not-counter-balance-to-Fox, the channel that coordinates political messaging with the Republican party, they are. Washington Post, and NY Times are not liberal outfits, no matter how many times Fox claims they are. They bend over backwards to present centrist objectivism, though given our current political climate that puts them ever so slightly left of center. That in turn inevitably gets them slandered as left wing papers by Fox. And in response, they ensure parts of their their opinion sections are dedicated to people on the extreme right in order to seem more balanced. The Wall Street Journal used to be in that same category, until it became part of the Murdoch empire. Now its only slightly better than Fox, once you read anything in there that isn't financial analysis. Like, what's left to be left in the media? In the news, you have to go all the way down viewership numbers until you get to Youtube channels like Vox (which is so "liberal" they fired Carlos Maza for the sin of calling Tucker Carlson racist), or pod casts like Pod Save America, before you really get anywhere. And that just gets you as far left as the center of the Democratic Party. Quick reminder: the democratic party has a progressive half, and a conservative half, so if you're only at the center of the Democratic Party, you haven't travelled very far into liberalism, and certainly not into leftism. So as far as political news goes, no, the media is most definitively not liberal. If you take a chart like this (, and then weight it by viewership numbers or funding, the chart will topple over to the right. And that's assuming that you even accept the idea that a privately owned newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos could be considered "Liberal" in any real sense of the word. I certainly have never seen a single article supporting unionization efforts or striking workers in any of the papers listed in the slightly-liberal category, so how liberal could they possibly be? Do we really think Microsoft's MSNBC, or Amazon's Washington Post are going to run pro-worker stories? Expanded healthcare? They just try to be a step closer to reality than Fox. But being left of Fox doesn't make one "liberal" If you're talking about non-news media, then what's left? This discussion usually just dovetails into people being angry that Hollywood sometimes makes movies with black leads or riske *** scenes or gay scenes or whatnot. Sometimes that's true. Hollywood and the rest of media are very focused in large cities, which are by definition more multi-cultural than the rest of the country, and some of that bleeds through into the stories that they tell, and can seem more progressive to people in small towns as a result. A lot of the time, though, what's really going on is Hollywood is trying to grab headlines and ensure that some under-represented demographic will watch their show by being the first one to put [insert-demographic-X-here] as the lead of their story. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. And the rest of the time, Hollywood is just trying to turn heads by putting something riske and over the top on the screen, and then giving themselves moral cover by saying something like "its not X, we're being progressive." HBO is basically the channel of "its not ****, its liberalism!" "Game of Thrones didn't have nude women every episode for the first 3 seasons because it turns heads, it was about female empowerment!", but again, that's marketing not reality, and certainly not politically meaningful. This is marketing, not actual politics. Again, show me the average Hollywood show that would support a worker. Or that paints billionaires in a bad light. Or paints bosses in a bad light. Or argues for expanded healthcare. Or shows what its like to be poor. Or blames poverty on the society instead of the individual. Or does any of the things that Fox News does nightly in the opposite direction. It doesn't exist. For every show that has an unabashedly liberal (not even leftist, are there any? I would love to watch) premise, there are another 5 that do the opposite. Massive shows about kingpin capitalists are on every night on every channel. One of the major shows right now is succession, literally a fictional reimagining of the Murdoch empire, but somehow we're supposed to believe this type of show is "liberal" because... why exactly? Because they aren't all preaching Christian morality? shakes head