The Liberal Media

The Liberal Media is constantly decried by the right.  I wonder how the Liberal Media came into existence.  I guess a few poor, welfare recipients got together and bought up a bunch of tv, radio, and print outlets.  Then they sold millions of dollars worth of advertising to their other poor, drain-on-society, good-for-nothing, waiting-for-a-handout friends.  And they use this power to fight the haves and give back to their kind- the have-nots. 

Who owns the stations?  Millionaires and Billionaires. 
Who pays for the advertising that keeps the stations operating?  Companies that make millions or billions. 
Who do these stations work for?  Bleeding heart liberals who want to steal from the rich?  I don't think so. 

questions for my conservative friends

I do not believe that any extreme position is good and that proper governance is a delicate balance.  Our nation is not perfect; we are an experiment and a work in progress.  So I have some questions.

1.  Should there be rules regarding the economy?  For example, should there be protections against monopolies, minimum wage laws, taxes, tariffs, etc?  Should those who use more of the commons pay more, or those who benefit more from the commons share more of their wealth back with the commons?  I am not asking for answers to these specific questions, just to the greater one:  Should there be rules at all?
2. If there are rules, then is there ever truly a "free market"?  Or is it always influenced somewhat by the rules that govern it? 
3. If there should be rules, would it be possible that the rules could be written in such a way that they wealthy were unjustly over-taxed and burdened?
4. If that is the case, could it also be possible that the rules could unfairly favor the haves at the expense of the have-nots?
5. Realizing that the rules are not set in stone and have changed over time, how would we know if the current configuration was working or if it was in need of some adjustment.
6. Realizing that our government is supposed to be of and for the people, should it intervene to adjust the rules if they are found to harm most of the people? 
7. If our current balance results in the producers and job-creators being overly burdened to the point where it is no longer profitable to create jobs, then should the government change the rules so that job-creators have enough reward to incentivize them to remain innovators?
8. If our current trend results in greater disparity of wealth and greater unemployment, then should we push the pendulum back a little towards a balance that favored more of the people?
9. Assuming that we are all somewhat dependent on this economy, do we all have an interest in making sure that whatever system we use is sustainable?

If our current balance is causing problems, then should we (through the government) adjust that balance?  Look at the data.  George W's own Comptroller, Comptroller Walker, said that 70% of our current deficit is from reducing the tax rates on the super-rich (in the form of income tax rates, estate tax, and capitol gain rates).  We lowered the rates, and we quickly ran out of money.  We need to swing the pendulum again.