One of our presidential candidates this year, Donald Trump, has espoused that the media is biased against him. And this is not an uncommon rhetoric amongst conservatives over the past decade plus. Daily Show host (at the time) Jon Stewart had this to say on the matter in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News back in 2011:
"I think that there is probably a liberal bias that exists in the media that is because of the medium in which it exists. I think that the majority of people working in it probably hold liberal viewpoints. But I don't think that they are as relentlessly activist as the conservative movement that has risen up over the last 40 years. And that movement has decided that they have been victims of a witch hunt. And to some degree they're right. People on the right are called racist and they're called things with an ease that I am uncomfortable with. And homophobic, and all those other things. And I think that that is absolutely something that they have a real right to be angry about and feel that they have been vilified for those things."
Is there a serious bias towards liberalism in the media? How much does said bias, if it exists, affect our country's public discourse and public opinion? And is it reasonable to expect non-partisan media to be the universal and uphold standard?
To get the US to a point where its media had an actual left wing bias, you would need to reanimate the corpses of Lennin, Marx and Trotsky and give them about a third of the media market.
The people who complain the US has left-wing media bias I suspect would, if pressed, also complain that facts have a left wing bias. 'Cannot make up garbage facts'!=left wing bias
The people who complain the US has left-wing media bias I suspect would, if pressed, also complain that facts have a left wing bias. 'Cannot make up garbage facts'!=left wing bias
C'mon, man. You have to know that one can be biased even while being completely truthful. Bias isn't just in the facts; it's in the worldview framing those facts. Michael Goldfarb at the BBC pointed out that the New York Times just appointed a gender editor, but no longer has a labor correspondent: identity politics are important to the paper, labor issues aren't. That's kind of a big deal. If the major concern in your life is jobs leaving your Rust Belt home city, then the Times running thinkpieces about gender issues every day isn't going to do much for you, even if all the factual statements made in those thinkpieces are true.
I think this is something that about which it is very difficult to determine what exactly is the case.
How do you determine and measure bias objectively?
The people who complain the US has left-wing media bias I suspect would, if pressed, also complain that facts have a left wing bias. 'Cannot make up garbage facts'!=left wing bias
C'mon, man. You have to know that one can be biased even while being completely truthful. Bias isn't just in the facts; it's in the worldview framing those facts. Michael Goldfarb at the BBC pointed out that the New York Times just appointed a gender editor, but no longer has a labor correspondent: identity politics are important to the paper, labor issues aren't. That's kind of a big deal. If the major concern in your life is jobs leaving your Rust Belt home city, then the Times running thinkpieces about gender issues every day isn't going to do much for you, even if all the factual statements made in those thinkpieces are true.
I think you've misunderstood what I was saying: that many of those most stridently complaining about overwhelming liberal media bias are claiming it because the media is presenting facts they dislike or refusing to believe the garbage facts they event.
I don't disagree that some papers everywhere - including the US - are more left wing than others, and some things (like the aforementioned gender editor) are possibly not net positive.
I can't easily find what percentage of US papers and news stations are owned by Murdoch, but I'd bet it's not a small amount and that none of it could plausibly be called left wing.
The people who complain the US has left-wing media bias I suspect would, if pressed, also complain that facts have a left wing bias. 'Cannot make up garbage facts'!=left wing bias
C'mon, man. You have to know that one can be biased even while being completely truthful. Bias isn't just in the facts; it's in the worldview framing those facts. Michael Goldfarb at the BBC pointed out that the New York Times just appointed a gender editor, but no longer has a labor correspondent: identity politics are important to the paper, labor issues aren't. That's kind of a big deal. If the major concern in your life is jobs leaving your Rust Belt home city, then the Times running thinkpieces about gender issues every day isn't going to do much for you, even if all the factual statements made in those thinkpieces are true.
So is the Times showing a right wing bias because it no longer has serious focus on labor issues or is it a left wing bias because it gives more focus to gender issues? Or is labor now considered a right wing issue in the US?
The mainstream media has a balance and eyeballs bias. It relentlessly strives to present balance in order to not get called liberal by the right wing. This is because they also have an eyeballs bias, meaning that their primary goal is to get eyeballs watching or reading their product, and being labeled as liberal scares them because it means they could lose conservative or even moderate viewers. This is not a problem for conservative media, because conservatives are more likely to seek out mass media that suits their bias, which makes up for lost liberal and moderate viewers, while liberals are more likely to seek out smaller publications with a liberal bias and "prestige" media (think NPR, PBS, BBC, generally mass media that is viewed culturally as "smarter") without regard to its bias. That's why smaller outfits like blogs, biased small circulation magazines like Weekly Standard or Mother Jones, and other such things do well on both the left and right, but only conservatively biased media does well in TV and radio form. Yes, even MSNBC, they tried to be the liberal network and have pared that back to the point that the liberal voices and conservative voices get nearly equal time due to Morning Joe's massive morning block. CNN et al are primarily concerned with ratings/circulation, and their eyeballs bias drives them to go for a both sides are bad narrative, making every issue into a he said she said debate, and focusing on tabloid celebrity news and lost planes.
On average, the media has a slightly right wing bias, if only because the right wing outlets are so nakedly partisan and their bias is so extreme. I'd say the breakdown in terms of bias between all mass media (excluding blogs, which are innumerable)looks like:
1/6th Naked left wing bias
1/6th Subtle left wing bias (NYT), either pervasive or from a balance of right and left wing bias with left wing slightly winning out (MSNBC)
1/6th Naked Eyeballs bias (CNN)
1/6th Subtle Eyeballs bias (NPR, PBS)
1/12th Subtle right wing bias (WSJ)
3/12th Naked right wing bias (Fox, Rush, etc)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Or is labor now considered a right wing issue in the US?
Strangely, it kind of is, especially in this election cycle. The hardline populist protectionist candidate is, after all, the Republican. But what's really going on is that this is not a clash of the traditional economic "left" and "right" at all. It's urban metropolis culture vs. industrial-city/small-town/rural culture. Cultural liberals in New York City have probably read Marx in college and may have had a higher opinion of him than conservatives do, but the industrial labor issues that preoccupied the old school hard left don't have enough relevance to people living in a prosperous information and service economy to loom large in their minds. Even when they take notice of economic issues like income inequality, as in Occupy Wall Street, it's not labor that they're really complaining about. Whereas cultural conservatives in Detroit may not have read Marx and are most likely revolted by him if they have, but Marx or no Marx the interrelationship between business and labor is at the forefront of their political consciousness.
I think part of the problem is that many "journalists" are less interested in reporting information objectively and more interested in performing activism via writing articles. Anyone who was actually paying attention to the #GamerGate controversy already knows full well just how corrupt these people are and how little ethics matters in the face of their ideological agendas.
Qualify this claim, because the last time I checked the facts didn't say what you're implying.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
You can't unslant the news without losing something. If abolitionists hadn't "slanted" the news then everyone would just accept the "fact" that black men were property and should be treated as such. Slanted Journalism was a huge part in ending slavery, so your arguments have to go deeper than "slant is bad".
That's why traditional news media has clearly delineated editorial sections. It is possible to report and advocate without crossing the wires.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Do you *really* want to devolve into a discussion about the ethical failings of "journalists" in the gaming industry? Because if so, I would be absolutely glad to bury you underneath mountains of evidence that social justice activism is infiltrating the media, often at the expense of ethics. I am not claiming that ALL journalists are like this, but the number is far greater than you would want to admit, and the gaming press just happened to be a shining example of everything I'm talking about.
If you're going to make the claim that social justice activism is the key to ethical failings of gaming journalists, and then make the secondary claim that you have mountains of evidence with which to bury all argument, then feel free.
Last time I checked, most of the Gaming Media's ethical failings were tied to large parts of it basically being a free hype machine for AAA game development, leading to constant breathless claims that "NEW GAME X is the BEST GAME EVER and people should PREORDER NOW WITHOUT WAITING for REVIEWS".
The Constant Infiltration of Social Justice added up to a few stories about racism and sexism in the games industry, last time I checked.
If I can be arsed, I'll link to my previous posts on Gamergate.
I mean, are you seriously trying to claim that Gamergate was "actually about ethics in game journalism"?
This being the event that started when Eron Gjoni tried to destroy his ex-girlfriend's career using claims of infidelity for the sake of reviews (reviews which don't exist), and which ballooned into an all points attack on progressive thought and women in videogames? Sure whatever
The fact that I've got links to the burgersandfries chatlogs tells me I know what I'm talking about, but feel free to actually link to your claimed examples of highly unethical things that were being done before gamergate got involved.
Aug 21 17.49.48 <rd0951> ./v should be in charge of the gaming journalism aspect of it. /pol should be in charge of the feminism aspect, and /b should be in charge of harassing her into killing herself
Yeah, and I think the NYT does a particularly good job of doing just that. Along with the Washington Post, for the most part. News Week & USA Today also seem to do a just fine job at that. I think those sources exist. Even WSJ which I think has a slightly rightward view because of the way it defines economic "facts" is still for the most part objective reporting.
The Times has generally given up the pretense of objectivity over the past year or so. The Post is better; they're doing good hard investigative journalism about Trump, though I can't help but think they wouldn't be quite so gung-ho pursuing negative stories on Clinton. Certainly they're no Fox News, though, and even Fox News pales in comparison to new media stuff like Breitbart and Facebook-as-it-presents-itself-to-you-through-its-content-tailoring-algorithms.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The people who complain the US has left-wing media bias I suspect would, if pressed, also complain that facts have a left wing bias. 'Cannot make up garbage facts'!=left wing bias
C'mon, man. You have to know that one can be biased even while being completely truthful. Bias isn't just in the facts; it's in the worldview framing those facts. Michael Goldfarb at the BBC pointed out that the New York Times just appointed a gender editor, but no longer has a labor correspondent: identity politics are important to the paper, labor issues aren't. That's kind of a big deal. If the major concern in your life is jobs leaving your Rust Belt home city, then the Times running thinkpieces about gender issues every day isn't going to do much for you, even if all the factual statements made in those thinkpieces are true.
But that citation says the NYT hasn't had a full-time labor correspondent since the 1970s. If that's evidence of liberal bias, does that mean labor issues have been a conservative issue since the 70s? Or was it not evidence of liberal bias then, but has become evidence of liberal bias in the intervening 40 years?
And what are we to make of the fact that the NYT does appear to have a labor correspondent, Noam Scheiber? And they had Steven Greenhouse before him?
But that citation says the NYT hasn't had a full-time labor correspondent since the 1970s. If that's evidence of liberal bias, does that mean labor issues have been a conservative issue since the 70s? Or was it not evidence of liberal bias then, but has become evidence of liberal bias in the intervening 40 years?
That's not actually what the citation says, and I don't know when the Times really lost its full-time correspondent. Like I said, it is not really evidence of liberal bias per se. It's evidence of a divergent cultural perspective, where the cultures in question happen to map loosely to Republicans and Democrats (which in turn map loosely to rigorous "right" and "left" philosophies). With that in mind, yeah, the decline of the Rust Belt beginning in the 1970s does mean that industrial labor has been more of an issue for people living there than people living in New York since that time. Most white blue-collar workers were still voting Democrat in the '70s, though.
I really don't feel the need to get too deep into the weeds on this one particular point of New York Times labor coverage. It's only an illustration of the general concept that so-called "liberal bias" is actually cultural rather than political. (Usually.)
The thing is, bias doesn't even mean that you're being dishonest or intend to deceive people or such.
It could simply be that the person who chooses what goes on the news decides what goes on the news, and so what that person considers important ultimately dominates said news.
People nowadays are starting to make a big deal about things like unintentional racism or prejudice and such, or at least what they perceive to be unintentional racism and prejudice and such.
I think there's no particular reason why this cannot apply to the situation in the OP as well, in that one either unintentionally shows a liberal bias to the world, or at least acts in a manner such that people think you are.
And, honestly, this kind of concept can apply to a lot of things.
If conservatives prefer conservative media, and there is plenty of that available, their media needs would be met without reading or watching a neutral source, even if those sources are available.
Consider Trinity-Land. Trinity-Land has 30 people. It has 10 liberals, 10 non-partisans, and 10 republicans. It has 3 news papers. One is liberal, one is non-partisan, one is conservative.
9 liberals read the non-partisan paper. 10 non-partisans read the non-partisan paper. 6 conservatives read the the non-partisan paper.
If liberals are a -5 on the scale, non partisans a 0 & conservatives a 5. Then, the news source which we know to be non-partisan scores -.75 with a liberal bent, which is pretty inline with the clump of ABC-News, CBS, USA Today, Bloomberg, NBC News (not msnbc), & cnn are scored in your info graphic. But, the average position does not represent the majority position, which is a non-partisan one. Simply by having more liberal viewers, and conservatives not participating it looks like the media suddenly skews left since the conservatives have opted out of reading these sources.
You haven't addressed WHY conservatives wouldn't be reading any particular paper, especially if it wasn't left leaning. You are asserting that they don't, for whatever mysterious reason, and that's what creates the perception. I've identified a very plausible cause-and-effect that explains it and justifies my position.
My understanding of their position was that right wing people avoid non-partisan media sources because they are at odds with their world view, even if the media source was ultimately neutral. They listed reasons why they thought that up above too, citing various things they thought a non-partisan paper might report that conservatives would still object to.
Conservative politicians have spent the last decade lambasting the "main-stream media", which may explain a uniquely conservative aversion to non-conservative media.
So, I ask again, would you like to substantiate your claims? I'm talking with a video right now, and it hardly feels like an exchange of ideas that would be present in a debate.
I'm sorry, I thought a New York Times editor stating outright that "Trump has changed us" would be more convincing than you and I splitting hairs over the implications and nuances of some article's wording.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So, I ask again, would you like to substantiate your claims? I'm talking with a video right now, and it hardly feels like an exchange of ideas that would be present in a debate.
I'm sorry, I thought a New York Times editor stating outright that "Trump has changed us" would be more convincing than you and I splitting hairs over the implications and nuances of some article's wording.
I don't think admitting that Trump has changed the way you do things means that you've stopped objectively reporting. They may have changed the way they respond to certain things or they may be finding themselves saying things they haven't said in the past without losing their objectivity.
There are other factors in the world that are more important than Trump lying. Investigative journalism finding corruption in the world does a lot more for the world than just telling us everything that people know already to be truth.
That and another larger factor, a lot of people are turned off by politics in general. There is no accounting saying that liars do not get ahead. He is obviously someone with deep fundamental problems, that through and through all of it are that which exists within the head and hearts of many. People simply see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear when their emotions are in charge of their spiritual lives.
Beyond all this, if we ourselves are to look at the future. It is not Trump's country, nor Clinton's country. The nation belongs to all of its citizens, and both Clinton and Trump have spent their lives building something up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
I think a lot of people did see the left bias for Hillary in the main-stream media, this and online news probably had a lot to do with Trumps victory. I don't think FOX really covered the email scandals much so they aren't really right wing. There is lots of left bias everywhere, the smart know how to see its propaganda. It is cultural Marxism through; schools, universities, movies, magazines, forums, books, feminism, banks, wars,... it's everywhere! I guess if the media is bias feeding it to the people then how deep is the rabbit hole... but it will be passed of as conspiracy and such.
The Right-Wing Online news would be stuff like; Alex Jones, AMTV, Stephan Molyneux, Peter Schiff, Wikileaks, RT... some of them I wouldn't call right-wing even but... RT has a video of how most of the media is owned by 6 corporations: so you can see how their owners might play a left narrative together. But yeah I refuse to watch TV cause it is just almost all spin. Free think!
I think a lot of people did see the left bias for Hillary in the main-stream media, this and online news probably had a lot to do with Trumps victory. I don't think FOX really covered the email scandals much so they aren't really right wing. There is lots of left bias everywhere, the smart know how to see its propaganda. It is cultural Marxism through; schools, universities, movies, magazines, forums, books, feminism, banks, wars,... it's everywhere! I guess if the media is bias feeding it to the people then how deep is the rabbit hole... but it will be passed of as conspiracy and such.
The Right-Wing Online news would be stuff like; Alex Jones, AMTV, Stephan Molyneux, Peter Schiff, RT... some of them I wouldn't call right-wing even but... RT has a video of how most of the media is owned by 6 corporations: so you can see how their owners might play a left narrative together. But yeah I refuse to watch TV cause it is just almost all spin. Free think!
One handy tip: if you don't want something passed off as a conspiracy, not framing it as one would help. It'd also help to not say stuff as "one or more of the following aren't right-wing: Alex Jones, AMTV, Stephan Molyneux, Peter Schiff".
As for liberal bias: eh. I think it's more that the media had a pretty big anti-Trump bias and therefore gave favoured Hillary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
"I think that there is probably a liberal bias that exists in the media that is because of the medium in which it exists. I think that the majority of people working in it probably hold liberal viewpoints. But I don't think that they are as relentlessly activist as the conservative movement that has risen up over the last 40 years. And that movement has decided that they have been victims of a witch hunt. And to some degree they're right. People on the right are called racist and they're called things with an ease that I am uncomfortable with. And homophobic, and all those other things. And I think that that is absolutely something that they have a real right to be angry about and feel that they have been vilified for those things."
Is there a serious bias towards liberalism in the media? How much does said bias, if it exists, affect our country's public discourse and public opinion? And is it reasonable to expect non-partisan media to be the universal and uphold standard?
The people who complain the US has left-wing media bias I suspect would, if pressed, also complain that facts have a left wing bias. 'Cannot make up garbage facts'!=left wing bias
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
How do you determine and measure bias objectively?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I think you've misunderstood what I was saying: that many of those most stridently complaining about overwhelming liberal media bias are claiming it because the media is presenting facts they dislike or refusing to believe the garbage facts they event.
I don't disagree that some papers everywhere - including the US - are more left wing than others, and some things (like the aforementioned gender editor) are possibly not net positive.
I can't easily find what percentage of US papers and news stations are owned by Murdoch, but I'd bet it's not a small amount and that none of it could plausibly be called left wing.
In 2012, coverage of Obama and Romney were fairly even (http://www.journalism.org/2012/11/02/winning-media-campaign-2012/).
The thesis 'The US media has an overwhelming (or even major) liberal bias' doesn't seem to be based on any strong facts.
So is the Times showing a right wing bias because it no longer has serious focus on labor issues or is it a left wing bias because it gives more focus to gender issues? Or is labor now considered a right wing issue in the US?
On average, the media has a slightly right wing bias, if only because the right wing outlets are so nakedly partisan and their bias is so extreme. I'd say the breakdown in terms of bias between all mass media (excluding blogs, which are innumerable)looks like:
1/6th Naked left wing bias
1/6th Subtle left wing bias (NYT), either pervasive or from a balance of right and left wing bias with left wing slightly winning out (MSNBC)
1/6th Naked Eyeballs bias (CNN)
1/6th Subtle Eyeballs bias (NPR, PBS)
1/12th Subtle right wing bias (WSJ)
3/12th Naked right wing bias (Fox, Rush, etc)
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Art is life itself.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Last time I checked, most of the Gaming Media's ethical failings were tied to large parts of it basically being a free hype machine for AAA game development, leading to constant breathless claims that "NEW GAME X is the BEST GAME EVER and people should PREORDER NOW WITHOUT WAITING for REVIEWS".
The Constant Infiltration of Social Justice added up to a few stories about racism and sexism in the games industry, last time I checked.
If I can be arsed, I'll link to my previous posts on Gamergate.
I mean, are you seriously trying to claim that Gamergate was "actually about ethics in game journalism"?
This being the event that started when Eron Gjoni tried to destroy his ex-girlfriend's career using claims of infidelity for the sake of reviews (reviews which don't exist), and which ballooned into an all points attack on progressive thought and women in videogames?
Sure whatever
Art is life itself.
Art is life itself.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But that citation says the NYT hasn't had a full-time labor correspondent since the 1970s. If that's evidence of liberal bias, does that mean labor issues have been a conservative issue since the 70s? Or was it not evidence of liberal bias then, but has become evidence of liberal bias in the intervening 40 years?
And what are we to make of the fact that the NYT does appear to have a labor correspondent, Noam Scheiber? And they had Steven Greenhouse before him?
I really don't feel the need to get too deep into the weeds on this one particular point of New York Times labor coverage. It's only an illustration of the general concept that so-called "liberal bias" is actually cultural rather than political. (Usually.)
They must be part-time?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It could simply be that the person who chooses what goes on the news decides what goes on the news, and so what that person considers important ultimately dominates said news.
People nowadays are starting to make a big deal about things like unintentional racism or prejudice and such, or at least what they perceive to be unintentional racism and prejudice and such.
I think there's no particular reason why this cannot apply to the situation in the OP as well, in that one either unintentionally shows a liberal bias to the world, or at least acts in a manner such that people think you are.
And, honestly, this kind of concept can apply to a lot of things.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
My understanding of their position was that right wing people avoid non-partisan media sources because they are at odds with their world view, even if the media source was ultimately neutral. They listed reasons why they thought that up above too, citing various things they thought a non-partisan paper might report that conservatives would still object to.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There are other factors in the world that are more important than Trump lying. Investigative journalism finding corruption in the world does a lot more for the world than just telling us everything that people know already to be truth.
That and another larger factor, a lot of people are turned off by politics in general. There is no accounting saying that liars do not get ahead. He is obviously someone with deep fundamental problems, that through and through all of it are that which exists within the head and hearts of many. People simply see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear when their emotions are in charge of their spiritual lives.
Beyond all this, if we ourselves are to look at the future. It is not Trump's country, nor Clinton's country. The nation belongs to all of its citizens, and both Clinton and Trump have spent their lives building something up.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
The Right-Wing Online news would be stuff like; Alex Jones, AMTV, Stephan Molyneux, Peter Schiff, Wikileaks, RT... some of them I wouldn't call right-wing even but... RT has a video of how most of the media is owned by 6 corporations: so you can see how their owners might play a left narrative together. But yeah I refuse to watch TV cause it is just almost all spin. Free think!
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
One handy tip: if you don't want something passed off as a conspiracy, not framing it as one would help. It'd also help to not say stuff as "one or more of the following aren't right-wing: Alex Jones, AMTV, Stephan Molyneux, Peter Schiff".
As for liberal bias: eh. I think it's more that the media had a pretty big anti-Trump bias and therefore gave favoured Hillary.