An effective way of dividing up an electorate is to separate the "right" from the "left," "liberals" from "conservatives," "liberals" from "progressives," "centrists" from "progressives," "alternative" from "mainstream."
This is no more evident than in the media.
Right-wing media has successfully convinced large swaths of the population everything that isn't Fox, Breitbart, Red State, The Washington Times, or the New York Post, etc. is inherently "liberal" simply by dint of it not being one of them.
But there is no "liberal" when it comes to the corporate media.
The so-called "liberal" media has become nothing more than a weak generic misnomer for anything not overtly pandering to the billionaire agenda.
CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC all the major national news conglomeratesare not liberal; they're multi-million dollar corporate juggernauts with banking, advertising, airline, automobile, insurance, food industry, retail, weapons, fossil fuel, and telecommunications executives sitting on their boards of directors, married to the almighty dollar/ratings.
This is why all we get from them is horse-race, personality-driven clickbait, not issues.
The New York Times is a popular conservative target.
Just like television media, though, it too operates within a corporate hierarchy.
And that hierarchy has determined that MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is just too "opinionated" to be associated with any of its reports.
It all started when an MSNBC producer extended an invitation to New York Times finance editor David Enrich to discuss with Maddow a story he was running about anti-money-laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank flagging suspicious transactions involving Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner.
"The Times was wary of how viewers might perceive a down-the-middle journalist like Enrich talking politics with a mega-ideological host like Maddow."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).