Liberal bias in the legacy press is nothing new, but conservatives rarely delve into the “how” and “why” behind it all. With the 2024 election — and the elite-media interference that accompanied it — behind us, the legacy press has shifted from protecting the Democratic Party to attacking it in certain cases. Three books on liberal media bias explain why the media elite’s misinformation machine may never cease.

Though it’s nearly 25 years old, Bernard Goldberg’s “Bias” remains a valuable resource. It was one of the first books to address this issue and gets to the heart of the problem within the journalism industry. The book, subtitled “A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News,” recounts Goldberg’s experience as a 28-year veteran reporter at CBS. He was fired after airing complaints to the Wall Street Journal about CBS’ growing leftward drift, including that of his boss, Dan Rather.

There is no fairness, balance, or impartiality — only straight advocacy for a hard-left agenda.

Goldberg recalls his years at CBS and elsewhere, noting that the industry attracts people who want to “change the world.” Conservatives, who value religion, heritage, nation, and family and generally do not seek to upend ancient institutions, are unlikely to fit this mold. This might explain what a friend recently told me: his graduating class of 100 at a top journalism school had about “two and a half conservatives,” himself included.

Goldberg writes that these “change the world” types don’t see themselves as biased when attacking conservative policies or opinions. They view their preferences as simply “common sense” — a phrase Rather used in a conversation with Goldberg. But considering how sheltered journalists’ lives are, far removed from 99% of America, the question is: common with whom?

Goldberg notes that his colleagues were fine with lying to their audience if they believed it would draw attention to an important cause and lead to “positive change.” One example of what he calls a “noble embellishment” involved reporters in the 1980s and '90s attempting to portray heterosexuals as equally susceptible to AIDS. This tactic, designed to alarm straight people, ignored the reality that AIDS was primarily a problem among gay males. Goldberg points to an article headlined “40% of AIDS sufferers are heterosexual.” But the story failed to acknowledge that most of the 40% were intravenous drug users, with few actually contracting the disease through heterosexual sex.

“Bias” does an excellent job of exposing media do-gooders’ moral blindness. Goldberg recounts how Rather and his colleagues were furious after he accused CBS News of bias in the Wall Street Journal. One of them even compared reading the piece to discovering his wife had been raped. Such sensitivity is, of course, rich coming from an industry that supposedly supports whistleblowers and whose entire existence revolves around interfering with other industries — never mind invading people's private lives. Consider former Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz, who cried after being criticized for doxxing the social media influencer "Libs of TikTok."

Manufacturing discontent

Matt Taibbi’s 2019 book “Hate, Inc.” also exposes the media’s hypocritical oversensitivity. While on the campaign trail in 2004, for example, Taibbi recalls receiving a complaint from the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz after apparently breaking an unwritten rule by taking video of the press section without permission. Once again, the media establishment feels aggrieved over something it does all the time.

Taibbi’s book, subtitled “Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another,” shifts from the media’s fake alarmism over liberal causes to the newer, more damaging phenomenon of “manufacturing discontent” between Republicans and Democrats. Taibbi describes this as “selling siloed anger” to attract more clicks and views. He writes that today’s mass-media consumer is often given content that simply confirms their prejudices, “about whatever or whoever the villains of the day happened to be: foreigners, minorities, terrorists, the Clintons, Republicans, even corporations.”

Taibbi harshly criticizes figures like Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow (each featured on his book’s cover). He especially criticizes Maddow, a former friend, for pushing the “Russiagate” conspiracy theory to cope with Donald Trump’s 2016 win. Taibbi’s friend Glenn Greenwald has commented on the seriousness of pushing such a pernicious lie, noting that it likely still fuels Democrats’ bloodlust for Russia’s defeat in its conflict with Ukraine.

It’s all activism now

Outlets like Maddow’s MSNBC essentially sell a “consumer product” to people, Taibbi notes. They offer viewers a “political safe space” that aligns with a specific political party. Media studies professor Andrey Mir explores this in his 2020 book “Postjournalism and the Death of Newspapers,” where he details how the media’s business model has changed in the post-internet era, altering how news is selected and reported.

Previously, leftist media analysts like Noam Chomsky argued that the establishment press skewed coverage to placate the wealthy elite (advertisers’ most coveted demographic). Now, the press skews coverage to cater to its activist readership. With advertisers moving to more efficient technologies like Facebook and Google — which control 80% of the advertising market — newspapers have turned to what Mir calls paid-up “members” and donors for revenue. These people, like everyone else, can read the news online for free but choose to give their money to outlets because they like what they say.

Treating such outlets as advocacy groups, Mir explains, means that only the largest publications — such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, the ones most capable of spreading the message — will attract support. What these “advocacy group members” are paying for, then, is not just to stay informed, but to push the outlet’s message and shape public opinion in the way they want it to be.

Previously beholden to corporate advertisers (again, Chomsky’s view), the legacy press is now dependent on the activists who fund it. As a result, daily story selection is driven by “the most resonating pressing social issues that could justify fundraising and stimulate readers to donate.” This process incentivizes journalism to “mutate into propaganda.” There is no fairness, balance, or impartiality — only straight advocacy for a hard-left agenda.

What it means for “save-the-world” types to now work for other “save-the-world” types is that expectations for the elite media to change should be even lower. To any conservative expecting the corporate left-wing media to come to their senses after Kamala Harris’ recent defeat and perhaps reduce their bias: It’s unlikely to happen any time soon.