Astonishingly, however, Kennedy probably believes what he's saying. Like many myopic liberals, he is blind to liberal media bias and intolerant of the opposing viewpoint. As a result of their arrogance and the cloistered echo-chambered environments they inhabit, most liberals don't believe liberal journalists slant their reporting, but present the only reasonable take on the issues.
To them, it is not biased to denigrate the conservative viewpoint, because to them that viewpoint is aberrational. To them, for example, there aren't two sides to manmade global warming; there is just the fact-based community and the deniers. To them, science-based intelligent design is, oddly, anti-science, whereas macroevolution, which can't begin to explain the formation of matter from nothing, much less life from non-life, is an incontrovertible fact. To them, a $161 billion deficit under George W. Bush is catastrophic, but a $1.3 trillion Obama deficit under Obama represents modest fiscal progress. To them, there are not two credible positions on certain macroeconomics questions. There is the Keynesian "truth" that government spending is required to stimulate economic growth versus the illiterate heresy that free enterprise causes growth and leads to greater prosperity for more people than any other system.
Indeed, many liberals are so certain that only their views are legitimate and that contrary ones are dangerous (they often lead to violence) that they flirt with the notion that vocal opposition ought to be muzzled -- as witnessed by campus speech codes, their crusades against so-called hate speech and the Fairness Doctrine.
America's problem is not divided opinion and rigorous debate, which have always existed and are integral to our system. (If it is divisiveness to which liberals object, they need look no further than President Obama, who is constantly pitting Americans against each other on the basis of race, income and gender.)
The problem is journalists who once acted as watchdogs against abuses of power and who now function as co-conspirators in those abuses by liberal politicians. If they choose to abandon any pretense toward objective journalism, that is their prerogative, but it is ours to shine a spotlight on their fraudulent abdication.
At least conservatives, both in the media and in public service, are more honest with themselves and others about their own beliefs and biases, and thus represent much less danger to the republic than liberal politicians and media masquerading as neutral, unbiased, objective or bipartisan. Even so, conservatives would never advocate chilling or suppressing liberal speech in any way.
What we need are not fewer conservative media outlets, but more. And we need liberal journalists and politicians to be more forthcoming about their biases.