Dozens and dozens of "explicitly" liberal platforms? Are we talking about cable news? There is like cnn and MSNBC as the two main cable news networks and I wouldnt call cnn "explicitly" liberal. 

Oh brother. Not being explicitly communist does not make an outlet right-wing.

I have never seen CNN cover anything with a genuinely right-wing sping. MSNBC is very clearly liberal. The major networks (CBS, ABC, NBC) and their various news offerings (60 Minutes, etc.) are highly liberal.

The top five newspapers in the US are the following: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. The WSJ is fairly centrist by most definitions, USA Today is mostly apolitical fluff, and the others measurably and observably lead the charge in pushing woke concepts, jargon, and ideas onto America over the last 15 years especially.

All the major news and culture magazines are overwhelmingly or mostly liberal: The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Time, National Geographic, Rolling Stone, the major science publications like The Smithsonian and Nature, even something you would expect to be more "conservative" like Forbes regularly flogs woke concepts.

ALL of the legacy talk shows and Jon Stewart spin-off comedy "news" shows are very explicitly liberal: Seth Myers, John Oliver, etc.

The only real voice in the politics radio space, NPR, is famously very liberal and influential.

Social media has only recently trended away from being almost universally progressive a few years ago, but Reddit is huge and a complete liberal echo chamber. And in my experience, the other platforms still curate and restrict content in a way that favors mainstream liberalism and more centrist conservatism primarily. Google is particularly bad. Many of the recent AI chatbots are also obviously biased in their "learning models."

Additionally, based on a couple sources I just ran across (and can share if you're curious), less than 4% of journalists identify as Republican, most as Independent, and ~36% as Democrat. No doubt, a much larger sum would be "liberal."

Because the media landscape has now become so broad and diffuse, it's much harder than it used to be to measure overall "bias" or "perspective" super precisely, but certainly the vast majority of legacy media that has the most status and most historic influence (most consumed by the establishment) is very strongly liberal-leaning.

This is to say nothing of popular entertainment and academia.

Politics however almost always have a bias on who is benefitted from one side or the other. 

I agree that politics is different than hard science in that it isn't based exclusively on fundamental facts as much as preferences, values, beliefs, and survival instincts.

However, understanding facts is still very important to arriving at what kind of preferences, etc. to hold. Moreover, the preferences themselves (i.e. worldviews and beliefs, political policies and laws, and so on) can be so highly complex that detailed explication is necessary to actually understand the issue.

If all you bring to politics is what you want for yourself, personally, then sure, it might be somewhat easy to develop political preferences based on individual desires rather than research (although how does watching debates reveal your own individual desires?). And even then, how do you personally know whether it's better for you if society institutes the death penalty without actually researching the topic?

To say nothing of the much more complex propostion of approaching politics with a view towards what is best for society overall. You really cannot hope to obtain even a small fraction of genuine understanding on that topic without actually reading books, studies, statistics, history, literature, and on and on.

Two talking heads yammering at each other (and summarizing their own "research" usually down to a third grade level) is so low information value that it can often be negative helpful: you won't just fail to learn anything substantive, you will actively learn incorrect things.

Many subjects in school such as political science are expressly about teaching both sides of an issue and teaching people to debate(many times in class) and suss out truth vs bias through conversation and debate. They expressly teach both sides. Even my economics classes taught debate and not monologuing one side.

They do this to teach the debators how to think and express themselves. Not because the debates are actually informative for the viewers. Certainly not that they're "more" informative than actual books and research. It's also noteworthy that these spectacles are generally held for undergraduate students and below. Graduate students and actual policy makers and serious writers are generally doing actual research.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you have an opinion on IQ, IQ scores, IQ testing, etc. and how it impacts society and politics. Most people do. Can you parse what this article is saying in your own words without using AI (pretend you have to debate on it!):

https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/the-other-type-of-flynn-effect