I'll answer that question in the same way I answered Dixiecrat when he asked if the cop would have pulled the trigger if the guy had been white. The answer is, I do not know, and neither do you.
I will say this, however. Like Dixecrat with the police shootings, you are treating the media's liberal bias as an axiomatic assumption, without considering alternative explanations for what you see. So if you are looking at CNN and seeing that it often looks like an anti-Trump tabloid with obsessive focus on the Russia investigation, then you may decide that this confirms your assumption about the media's liberal bias. Or you may consider an alternative explanation which is based on hard facts. Fact: the media is corporate and shareholder owned. Fact: the media's focus on Trump gaffes and Trump scandals has produced record ratings. TV ratings, newspaper subscriptions, and website "hits" are through the roof.
Several liberals have argued in editorials that the press's obsession with the Russia scandal is distracting people from the terrible things the GOP is doing with healthcare and other policies. They may be right, but the media isn't going to change its focus, not when they're getting these kinds of ratings. Discussion of policy may put viewers and readers to sleep. Scandal sells.
On the whole, I think the media is pretty accurate with facts. I don't agree with many conservatives who say it is "fake news." I do, however, agree that there's a bias in emphasis of certain facts over others. However, I'm not so sure that the liberal bias theory, which is universally believed by conservatives, is correct. There's plenty in the media that is inconsistent with the liberal bias theory, and very little that is inconsistent with media sensationalism.
