Snopes always had a heavy liberal bias.
Most of MSM has a soft-left bias and a lot of it is hard left - and not in the classical 'socialist' manner (i.e. representing working class) - they're now fully onto race and identity issues, and enforcing PC culture.
There was an article in the Guardian today - written by a woman, lambasting how rude and crude and disgusting the male habit of 'stag parties' (UK bachelor parties) are. The comments section (and this is a fairly left wing site) lambasted the author, because were the roles reversed, she'd be chastised, she's never been to a stag, and the female version of stags are equally as bad. But in the Guardian, they need an article every day to hate on white men. Even their readers called them out.
Every day there is an article in the Huffington Post or the Guardian or MSNBC that could very well be in the Onion. They are easily just as bad as anything alt-right. But in the article - only the 'alt right' was mentioned as being of poor quality. Again - this is obvious bias.
Fox News - at least the news items (not the commentary, which is bad) is actually looking reasonable these days, which is shocking to me.
Watch the local news only for 10 days. You'll feel something is 'too normal'. It's relaxing. It's just the news - that's it. Then - when you turn back to cable news - you'll realize how full of spin and ideology it is.
The only reason I watch CNN is to try to grasp what kind of spin they are applying, and why. CNN is soft about it (Fox and MSNBC are blatant), and probably the trickiest, but it's there if you look for it.
Are you counting by outlets or by readership/viewship? I think by both metrics, most main stream media is on the right or hard right. Which metric are you using that puts most of MSM on the left?
>There was an article in the Guardian today - written by a woman, lambasting how rude and crude and disgusting the male habit of 'stag parties' (UK bachelor parties) are.
That was an opinion piece. That's not really in the same topic as making things up like "NYT columnist calls for assassination of Trump" based on a radio interview for a station that doesn't exist.
Some people can't take a joke, it seems. Or rather, some men can't take a little lifestyle piece lightly without turning it into "enforcing PC culture". And that's all it is. Someone did a study suggesting that most men don't actually enjoy what they're "supposed" to enjoy, and the guardian does a little bit on toxic masculinity. They have a point, it's a ridiculous setup that men go along with because more unforced and genuine enjoyment feels in contradiction with their own need to perform masculinity.
The only people enforcing anything are the bars with "NO STAG/HEN PARTIES" signs, usually due to previous trouble.
(The Guardian comments are of course full of right-wing people hating on the Guardian. It's not a symmetrical phenomenon.)
You may have caught this on HN last month:
http://www.meltingasphalt.com/ads-dont-work-that-way/
If you were to apply that model for how advertising works to your use of CNN, you could conclude that CNN may "work" very effectively on you and everybody else, even if nobody were to believe anything they see on CNN.
Apparently logic has a liberal bias to.
An opinion has no nothing to do with what a fact is and whether snopes accurately debunks them.