If you view people who don't agree with you politically as strawmen who "worship" your least favorite politicians, then you've already failed at understanding the world. Everyone disagrees on stuff, but if you want to understand people and the world, the only way to do that is to see things from other peoples' perspective. They have plenty of reasons for voting the way they do that have nothing to do with being brainwashed or worshipping false idols or whatever. You may or may not agree with those reasons, and those reasons may be based on true or false premises, but if you don't understand your opposition you will never defeat them, if that's your goal. You might even find that better government is a higher goal than beating whatever group you've lumped into a single hate bucket. What you said is no different from how you think "those people" view you.

I don't object to people disagreeing with me politically. Yes, the "worship the Clintons and Democratic party" part is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Are you sure your own political position isn't blinding you?

I do object when those who disagree with me politically smear my side, or even anyone on their side who doesn't agree with them enthusiastically enough, as racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, ignorant, redneck, while they claim to be the most intelligent people in the world and the sole source of compassion and tolerance.

I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion with anyone who has at least put some thought into their position and doesn't devolve to slinging insults around when they see facts they don't like.

I don't think parent poster has a problem with people having opposing views, but with media organisations affirming they are unbiased while they are not. And this criticism is not limited to the right wing -- see Chomsky.

It's a damn shame that our country is so split into two parties (or worse -- "moderates") that we assume you're either Left or your Right. I know many people who would feel more involved in the political system if there were viable parties that represented beliefs that cross (or often are completely unrepresented in) party lines.

The two party system coerces us into false dichotomies far too often.

So long-running papers such as the Wall Street Journal, regional / local newspapers with long conservative histories (example: the Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, etc.), several long running political analysis magazines (National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator), even the vast tabloid (New York Post) and AM talk market, are Clinton / Democratic party worshipers? News to me.

Heck, Fox News itself is over 20 years old. So I'm not sure what "long time" you are referring to.

I note what you picked (newspapers and news magazines, plus talk radio and Fox). But you left out MSNBC, CNN, and even the New York Times for some reason...

That is: Yes, there are center-right or right-wing press organizations. Despite that, it is still true that the bulk of the "mainstream" press is no longer center - they have become biased, and sometimes even actively helping Democratic campaigns. That's not what "mainstream" used to be.

The United States traditionally has enjoyed a wide variety of opinions in its various regional daily newspapers, and some studies in the past have shown very little bias overall (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000....). Obviously there was individual bias, but not in the meta.

Maybe something has happened of late (would love to see data, aside from cable news which I think has obtained strong bias of late). But personally, I believe that if there is a problem, it is more the consolidation of media outlets into very large corporations.

This is a lack of diversity problem, not a bias problem. If "mainstream media" is defined by Big Corporations, you have to include Fox News (News Corporation) and AM talk radio (largely Clear Channel) with the liberal side of MSNBC (Comcast), Time Warner (CNN), Disney (ABC), and CBS. I can easily buy that the fact we have much fewer voices than we used to driving the narrative might lead more to monolithic opinions and groupthink.

Incidentally, I personally find the charges you are making about media actively helping campaigns a bit weird as well, given Steve Bannon's role in the Trump campaign.

I never considered Breitbart as part of mainstream media, so I ignored that. CNN is in a completely different position than Breitbart.

"Mainstream" used to be NBC, CBS, and ABC, plus AP and UPI. Of those, UPI's gone; NBC, CBS, and ABC have more-or-less abandoned their role. Fox and CNN are new-ish (at least to a person of my age). So to claim that "the mainstream media" all abandoned the center means "almost all the original ones did" - not counting Fox (or even CNN) in the reckoning. Never the less, CNN and Fox are far more mainstream than Breitbart, which is a marginal fringe player.