One of the more curious twists in recent American history is the impact of Rupert Murdoch, the Australian press baron who became an American citizen to keep control of his then fledgling television network.
Politically conservative, he’s nevertheless lowered the social standards of mass media. So much for values. He introduced dirty words to television and thus made them more acceptable in otherwise polite public discussion. His tabloid newspaper journalism, meanwhile, focused on celebrities and scandal in ways that have eroded serious political debate and public policy. That’s even without getting into his influence in Hollywood.
Put simply, we’re a less polite society than we were before his appearance. Or should we just say, cruder? That’s even before we get into the Fox News role as the Republican Party mouthpiece. Or all of the Murdoch-related phone-hacking uproar in Britain.
Now we might wonder how he’s reacting in private to the Donald’s emergence as the GOP presidential race leader. Someone from another television network, free from the Fox connection, all the same rising and then riding on the confrontational entertainment celebrity approach to political argument Murdoch’s nurtured.
Still, Murdoch’s far from the faceless corporate existence we see elsewhere. He’s passionate about print journalism, for one thing, and has been willing to take risks. But when people complain about “the media,” he’s still part of the mix, the one that almost always carries negative connotations. And, for the record, let’s point out it’s really corporate media, focused on big profits, rather than liberal.
Jnana's Red Barn 
I go with “cruder” as the more accurate description of Murdoch’s contribution to human discourse.
Liberal media, it seems, is more concerned with particular social norms. Other issues are ignored or misconstrued. For example, a course of aggression is not opposed for being wrong morally but for being wrong at this time or wrong for not using enough lethal force in particular ways. This is apparent every time one violation after another of a nation’s sovereignty is called a “blunder” or a mistake”.
Rupert’s one thing.
But the so-called liberal media are not so much the problem you describe — rather, it’s the national political discourse that’s being reported. Where are the sharply critical but reasoned voices that serve as a loyal opposition?
I think of the NY Times and Judith Miller in 2002/2003. The NYT has a reputation, whether deserved or not, as “liberal media”. Miller used her position at the NYT to promote a war in Iraq. She even went so far as to claim it was not her job to assess what those gov’t officials fed to her. She believed their statements to be true. She lacked doubt.
There were and still are many who speak in reasonable ways and voices who are simply left out of the national discourse (if such a beast exists). It is only after things go awry (for us never for the victims) that someone like Miller or their employers will say “our sources were mistaken or inaccurate” but then it is too late.
Unfortunately, that can happen. Real competition can reduce its chances, though. Early in the Watergate revelations, the NY Times kept dogging the Washington Post, trying to find holes in its ongoing coverage.
I miss the days of two-newspaper towns, for starters. And television can’t begin to fill the gap.