The talk is hardly clear and undeniable. He goes into absurd detail on how the word "braces" in a headline is a sign of the evil media, and he even gets it wrong. Berkeley, is not "bracing" for Shapiro, but for the elements of the infantile left who might cause trouble when he appears. I live in Berkeley. The media here have many times pointed out the irony of groups denying someone the right to speak given our city's history. And in addition, today's paper mentioned both a "left-wing group" and "left-wing anarchists," terms he suggested were not used.
I agreed with the guy til he started in on the old tired media is biased paranoia. Face it: since the late 50s and early 60s there has been a broad consensus in the country in support of labor rights, civil rights, and a bit later, caution in foreign affairs and support for enviornmental issues. The media reflects that consensus in the stories covered cause they interest their customers. (Even Trump supporters didn't buy his weird statements challenging that consensus, as much as they liked his style.) Conservatives are at times skeptical of some solutions proposed or may deny the problems exist. They win elections but liberal policies remain. So somehow -- aside from liberal judges-- the messenger must be at fault. Funny, he reminded me of a leftist guy I met in the 1980s. His paranoia was so great that he thought that the newspapers chose where on the page to put various stories for maximum conservative effect.
Can someone explain to me how this liberal media bias happened? My own ideas are that reporters tend to be urbanites who are more liberal-minded in general. The cities they inhabit often have more diverse populations and they probably, for example, rub elbow with Muslims so fear them less or have contact with visitors and residents from countries where, for example, government provision of health care is a given. Not that there isn't political correctness around, but remember, we liberals invented the term to poke fun at ourselves.
