Just for the record, I appreciate your posts. We might completely disagree on a lot of things, but your posts are still informative and thought through.
I agree with this to a point. The media is a corporate business, and as such, it will adapt to cultural change to the extent that such change affects its business model. The emergence of Fox News is an example of this trend. It plays to an audience of conservatives who have convinced themselves that the rest of the media is against them, and so long as it remains the only game in town for conservative biased mainstream network media, it will do well with that model.
The reason fox was able to position itself as the go-to station for conservatives is because just about every other news outlet leans to the left (the degree of the lean varies). Like you said, they were essentially the only game in town if you don't want your news with a liberal slant. If most of the media didn't lean to the left, fox would not have been able to set themselves apart by being the only non-left-leaning outlet.
It used to be that the news branches of major networks were to some extent given a pass and allowed to lose a little money, on the theory that the news component brought some prestige to the network. However, with so much competition right now, first from the emergence of cable news then the internet, news media is hemorrhaging and they have to compensate by being increasingly sensationalistic. What they're not doing is compensating by being increasingly liberal, because this approach limits their market.
I don't think they're "increasingly liberal", they've always been liberal. They've grown increasingly willing to play loose with the truth in their attempt to survive in the new reality. They've always been liberal, but their prestige as a legitimate news provider had great value so they didn't go overboard and had to at least appear to be unbiased. Now that the prestige of being a "legit" news source is rapidly losing it's value because of the internet etc, formerly "legit" places are trading the prestige of being an accurate legitimate source for the profits of being a sensationalist outlet pushing a political narrative. Kind of like Microsoft changing their business model from "making money from selling software / OS" to "give away the OS for free and monetize the information you glean from the users".
I know you think the media's coverage of Trump shows a liberal bias, but Trump is a walking controversy. He's been a huge ratings boon for all the news media. If you don't want to see so much negative coverage of a republican candidate, then don't nominate a vain reality TV star with a penchant for lying and offending all sorts of people. If you choose to nominate that sort of candidate, then expect the news media to cover the ensuing controversies quite gleefully. It was nowhere near this when Romney ran in 2012 and the news media certainly hasn't changed much in just 4 years.
You don't have to tell me Trump is lousy. I've always been on record as not liking him as a candidate. The media had a much easier time going after Trump because he has so much baggage and is generally a douche. They were just as heavily biased against Romney, he was just not as juicy of a target. Trump just beat them at their own game by using their penchant for going after him as a positive weapon for his campaign.