There might be a phrase that's true here and there, doesn't give the article useful substance. I thought you'd be aiming higher than that, if you like this material.
"I try to refer always to media and media analysis. So in this case, the "who" refers to self-described liberal-left monopoly media and the revealing way they report (and don't report) on issues of race, gender, disability, class, etcetera."
These writers weren't talking about the media; and I was talking about what they were talking about, having been referred there by your endorsement of their writing. So I'd say that's a 'nice try' on your part - but if we're at cross purposes that's fine.
Your 'dares to offer a different opinion is', frankly, ludicrous. There's only me and wv post on these issues, the others having been hounded off! Turtleman can equate us with unspecified perversions and obscenities with no-one batting an eyelid!
While I'm being frank, I'd be happy to discuss the real substance of these issues with you, if you would only shed your fake postures. You don't need them, you can post good stuff. How can one-sided bashes and swipes possibly lead to constructive debate?