The disparity in media coverage between what right wingers get anywhere anytime and what lefties have received over the past decade is so huge that when I reach for reasons I tend to get more paranoid about news organizations than I usually am. It's hard not to see it as a deliberate decision from the top. Ignore the protesting hippies.Among the high-hit-count "progressives", Duncan Black is by far the most heterodox, even if the fair portion of his output seems to consist of one-line links, bad taste in music, and open threads, but this sort of thing explains why he can nevertheless be counted on, come electiontime, to hector everyone to suck in their guts and vote Donk, lord help ye, lest the evil Republicans take a greater percentage of charge.
The constant fondling of this particular media bias fetish is unimportant exact as an object lesson in the existence of left and right political categories as nothing more than neat arbitrary distinctions--shirts and skins playing a rough-and-tumble game of pickup basketball in the same prison yard under the same watchful eyes of the same guards. There are no lefties and right wingers; there is no "liberal" or "conservative" media bias. The premises are flawed; the categories are erroneous.
The media bias is in favor of Ownership. It is in favor of Power. It's in favor of Capital. This is why citizen-subject level observers from "both" left and right can view mass infotainment media as inimical to their interests at the same time. It is inimical to their interests at the same time. It serves the interests of the owning class. That it reflects preferences the left-to-right political spectrum at all is really just a matter of coincidence: whomever, left or right, coverage favors, it favors because that favor serves power.