Liberal Media

I recently caused a mini-storm by commenting that recent media labels suggesting whites scavenging goods were "finding " them and lbacks performing the same actions wre "looting" were evidence against a "so-called liberal media."  I thought I'd explain.
###
First of all, since there seems to be no commonly accepted definitions of what "conservative" and "liberal" mean, this is an extremely slippery area.  Actually, I think that what has happened is that there are several arenas: religious, Constitutional, economic, social, etc., and that every one of those has different agendas.  Those with a powerful tendency toward the Right in say, Constitutional interpretation (a strict Constitutional interpretation of laws, state's rights, etc.) will often find themselves allied with those who are, say, strictly conservative about religious issues, whether they personally hold such beliefs or not.  And the same thing is true on the Left, or Liberal side.  So there are groupings.
###
Racially, it strikes me as unreasonable to suggest that racism, or eliteism based on skin color, is not affected by this Right-to-Left spectrum.  Certainly, the Left can be criticised for excessive, almost compulsive egalitarianism.  A person who wants open borders will almost certainly be found to have other beliefs from the Left.  A person patrolling our borders in his camper is probably also holding other beliefs from the right, and associates himself in that fashion.   Nothing wrong with this.
##
Over the course of my 53 years, I've heard countless thousands of people discussing these issues, and there positions thereupon.  Personal conversations, radio lectures, books, etc.  I clearly remember the civil Rights era, and those who supported King (for instance) as opposed to those who called him a "Communist", a "Troublemaker" etc.  While there were certainly those who considered themselves conservative who supoorted King (for instance, Charlton Heston) that wasn't the way to bet.  and to this day, those who push for racially-charged issues like Affirmative Action, etc., are on the Left.  Most black Americans feel that the Democrats (and the Left) have more of their interests at heart, justas as you slide u the scale of social advantage, up to white Christian upper-class Male, you get larger and larger percentages of conservatives.  It is rediculous to suggest that these people simply don't know what is good for them--that in itself is condescending and racist, in my view.  It is that the different ends of the political spectrum hold differing beliefs about what is good and appropriate in human nature and in the political sphere.  anyone who knows me knows that in some arenas (gun control,   for instance) I hold Conservative views, and in others (social, personal freedoms) I tend to hold positions more often held by those on the Left.
##
Racially, I often hear avowed Right-wingers complain about the "Liberal Media" presenting images and issues in a way that slants toward anti-Christian, pro-Affirmative Action, pro-Abortion, etc.  The fun thing is that Air America, which really IS liberal, complains about the media slanting the OTHER way.  In other words, if you are way to one side or the other, a relatively Moderate media will SEEM to slant against you.  Because one of the issues that affects me on a daily basis is race, I pay attention to this one.  I remember clearly when the race of a criminal perps was described only if the perp was non-white. I remember when there were no images on television, and few in film, that showed non-whites as anything but srevile and dispicable.  And I remember the people whose constant complaining, marching, meeting, letter-writing and protesting finally got the networks to change their presentation--even when those changes ran right into the realities of American racial politics, and the shows and movies flopped.  And guess what?  Almost every one of the people who did the complaining and marching was a Leftie.  And Right-Wing pundits were either silent on the issue, or called the complainers agitators. 
##
During the civil rights era, and down to today, both sides have had their opportunities to stake out territory on issues.  On Race, the Right HAS been willing (reluctantly, it seems) to finally take the position that, yes, constituitional guarantees of equality must be applied to those of all races, and that, yes, this is more important than State's Rights when those states are unwilling to apply these promises equally.  Would anyone say that the states where there was the most trouble with racial issues were not also considered among the most Conservative states on other issues?  Am I supposed to believe this is mere coincidence?  And now that the mass of work was done by marchers and voting rights workers--some of whom died in the process--who were called "Communists" and "Socialists" by the right--conservatives are willing to take the position that we should all be color blind.  Of course, more vitriole seems to arise in connection with this concept when the discussion of Affirmative Action comes up than when there is any discussion of inequality between the racial groups, something which could be interpreted as a hidden means of attempting to protect white privilege.
##
does anyone think that the average reader of the Bell Curve is not conservative?  Or that those who promoted and funded it were not from that side of the spectrum?  Please.
##
On the other hand, I STRONGLY state, again and for the record, that I do NOT believe all, or even the majority of conservatives are racist, or that conservatism is a racist ideology.  I DO say that most racists are conservative.   That racism is a disease of the Right, as communism or blind eqalitarianism is a disease of the Left.  It does not infect all, but that's where you tend to find it.
##
So when I laugh at the idea of a "Liberal" media, this is the framework in which I laugh.  A socially  "liberal" media would   specifically seek to undo four hundred years of negative stereotypes and racial abuse, to the point that non-whites would have a slight advantage, as a socially "conservative" media would adhere to the racial power distributions of the 40's and 50's, depicting non-whites as they were at that time: mostly childish subhumans worthy only of being sidekicks, servants, and cannon fodder.  and what I see in the media is actually about half-way between these two.  There are certainly liberal forces in Hollywood, but they are slapped back into place FAST by the market realities, and have been from the beginning.  The politics of Hollywood is money.  Anyone who doesn't understand this, in my mind, simply doesn't understand the industry.  and the money goes to those who reinforce what the public wants to see.
##
They want to see white males presented as the only sexually powerful, successful males on the planet. they want to see non-white females drawn irresistably to those males, eschewing their own men.  They want to see only whites in positions of ultimate authority, no matter how far in the future you go.  they want to present racism as occuring only among Troglodytic, fat, cigar-chomping southerners, rather than the insidious, damn near Uninversal force in human nature that it is.
##
And they want to see whites as "finding" food and supplies, while blacks "loot" them.  I've seen it all my life.  It has been pushed further into the shadows than ever before, but its's still there, people. And for all the legitimate criticism that can be directed at the Left, THAT particular problem can be most reliably found on the other side.  Like I said: don't believe me?  Next time you hear someone make a racist comment, subtly ask them about their other social and political attitudes.  Perform this experiment ten times, and tell me what you learn.

Steve