Or, possibly, entire fractal universes of it, yes.
I had the privilege of knowing a couple of mainstream media journalists years ago, and the question of “why is the media left-leaning, for the most part?” came up in a social situation. The answer they gave was that they saw so much misery in the course of their job that they had no choice but to become that way, if they weren’t already.
A story about a shooting? It would have been prevented if gun control laws had been enforced, or guns banned entirely. (Note that I’m in Canada, which has no Second Amendment.)
Crime caused by poverty? It could be prevented if we had a better welfare net.
Deaths caused by drugs? What if we reconsidered the illegality of drugs, or at least gave addicts wider and better treatment options, on the taxpayer’s dime?
And so on. The point is that these are things that these journalists encountered in person every day, and that the rest of us office drones, blue-collar workers, professionals, and other ordinary people would rarely see in person, if ever; and only know of through the media. Yes, facts can be reported, and are; but at some point, after being exposed to all this misery, one begins to question why all this had to happen. And the answers tend to fall to the left of the spectrum, and are reported as such. At least, this is the impression I was left with after that conversation with my journalist friends.
I don’t know if this is a very good explanation though, since police officers and prosecutors encounter all of these scenarios as well and have reputations for generally being more conservative (setting aside all possible race issues).
If you’re trying to tell us Charles Krauthammer is a Trump apologist, you can’t hope to be taken seriously.
Don’t worry, I’m confident the President will find some people to put in there sooner or later. 
Well I dunno what else you can take away from this story. He’s falling in line just like everyone else on FOX News to obfuscate and deny this story.
Here’s another great example: Heat Street talks about how biased everyone is in their coverage of Trump.
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/
Except that the study doesn’t show bias, merely how people covered the president. And given Trump’s disastrous first 100 days, it shouldn’t really be a surprise to anyone that most of the news coverage has been negative. But of course, Heat Street can hardly admit that Trump’s presidency has had a rocky start, can it? I’m sure the coverage of any president, left or right, who was this fucking incompetent and dangerous would be similarly negative.
If there were ever a situation where two sides are not equal and opposite, it’s this one.
The “mainstream media” actually covers a spectrum of views, and even the part that leans left will still be critical of Democrats some of the time.
They spend precisely 0% of their time telling you to ignore other news outlets.
They also don’t try to debunk science, except in situations where there is genuine dispute within the scientific community.
And most don’t engage in the kind of tactics FOX sinks to, like the infamous chartcomparing apples to oranges and then scaling the chart in a deliberately misleading way, going round Chinatown making fun of people who can’t speak English, countless ad hominems against guests etc.
No not the same.
I agree with you that many on the right might say that though (baselessly), and this touches on the problem that the OP is describing.
I’m not buying this. For decades the media just played along with the government’s anti-drug rhetoric. As part of covering the crack epidemic the media helped reinforce the image of young African American men as thugs, they gave us the idea of crack babies, and for the most part they weren’t all that critical of U.S. drug policy. You could find some media seriously discussing the merits of legalizing drugs back in, say, 1994, but the few times you found such talk in mainstream news it was drowned out by voices who were not critical of the drug war at all.
Meme spouting pigs in red hats are poisoning the minds of the public. The institutions meant to safeguard our democratic heritage have failed. We must empower a strong leader to smash through the bureaucracy and cleanse this cancer from our body politic and restore the republic. I am humbled to assume this mantle and promise your faith in me will be rewarded.
Such power will be temporary, of course.
In the meantime, reinstating the Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t hurt.
What’s the deal with you and Walton Firm spelling “Fox” in all capital letters?
When I see words interspersed in a text in all caps, they’re usually more randomly picked, and they usually end with multiple exclamation marks. But that’s not what you’re doing. So what’s up with that?
I was under the impression they went by FOX, not Fox. And I am just now realizing that I am wrong. Weird.
Yeah, I guess I was imagining things. Trump and Krauthammer have a real mutual admiration society going.
We could start by banning all the commentators and op-ed writers we don’t like.
But there’s a more democratic and less controversial alternative - replace them with much cheaper talent from disadvantaged/Third World countries.
For example, let’s take all the opinion-makers from the right and left who encourage unrestricted immigration (largely on the grounds that the newcomers are only taking jobs Americans won’t do). Replace those mostly white, upper middle class editorial/op-ed writers with people from Mexico, India, Nigeria etc. That way we’d also get fresh new perspectives on Trump, health care, homeland security, police shootings and so on, to replace stale commentary from hacks like Krauthammer, Krugman, Brooks, Dowd and their ilk, plus the new folks will work for a lot less, saving newspapers and other media a ton of money.
Like with lawyers chained together at the bottom of the sea - it’s a start. 
Ditto. In my defense, I am not a native USAnian.
It’s polite to call people, and groups of people, by the name(s) they call themselves.
It’s not USAnian, it’s American.
Shame your friends and family that are on the to it. Make their hatred a social liability.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
…?
Oh, I’m pretty sure I picked up that habit here on this board, from people referring to themselves as such (example, example, example, and here is a US citizen explicitly stating that they prefer to avoid the term “American”). Or is this one of those cases where members of the group are allowed to use a certain nickname for themselves but it is considered offensive for outsiders to do so?
Admittedly however, when looking up the above examples I also came across some people expressing a dislike for the term, and a general sort-of-consensus that “American” is the best choice, so I’ll keep that in mind for the future.
Sounds like a plan more likely to turn your own hatred into a social liability.