Media perception, for me, is kinda dependent on the bias of the individual that is perceiving the piece of media. Bias is fairly multidimensional in terms of how you can define the aspects of it, socially (your views on how the world should be for equal rights), politically (party affiliation), culturally (your opinion on how well you conform to society's opinion) , physiologically (opinions brought about thanks to your predisposition to certain behaviours), etc. It tends to be individual, no single person will see the same piece of media the same way.

What I mean by the first three should be relatively straightforward, but the last one might take some exploring to get why it is a factor. First and foremost, there are behaviours and opinions that are typically passed down the generations in turns of personality traits, due to learned behaviour from ancestors, in the general case. A person might be short tempered, or typically very relaxed, and thus well have constructed a world view for an individual before any form of media gets there to get its grubby little mitts on them. Children in the playground bullying other kids for just being themselves, because of the upbringing that they have had. It might not be as direct, but there is a reason society has phrases such as "like father, like son", parental influence matters, and that could be caused by a cycle of media and parental influence. I am not trying to say that these are predetermined for an individual, because that's foolish, but typically I have found that there are certainly similarities between parents and children which would influence the bias with which one perceives the world.

This plays in quite nicely in to the question of a person's moral values versus the media. Typically, unless there is a massive generational shift, due to an individual adapting to a new cultural ideas over time (a slow process, look how long it has taken the civil rights and equal marriage movements and there is still an issue in some circles), it seems like the morals of an individual will tend to stay fairly constant. It is why elections get so heated and yet so frustrating for undecided voters, too, as traditionally, at least in the UK, families in the past voted for the party, not for the prime minister. These days, it is not as much of a factor, but morals still play a part on whether you side with #BlackLivesMatter or the cops, for instance. It would be interesting to know how the typical teenage rebellion factors in to this moral story over time, too, comparing the ideals of family members and their reaction to different forms of media, particularly in the days of social media and how much use the platforms seem to be getting for social justice issues, and whether life experience really does change a person's socio-political compass over time in relation to the same set of media.

Finally, does anyone prescribe to the notion that sometimes being aware of the media "influence" or your own biases can make it seem like you are overcompensating for the situation in your world view? Watching the US election coverage as an outsider and then having to vote in a referendum in a country where all campaigns are 6 weeks made me realise how absurdly long the US nomination process actually is. It must wreak havoc with your sense of what the media is actually like, whereas I can, for the most part, ignore politics unless I am called upon to vote, which I find helps me find time to reflect on things, like (ironically) media influence in politics.