The media is entirely biased towards moral liberalism and I thought it was an "open secret" that only the most self-deluded didn't know about. Of course they're going to be biased towards Clinton, she's the morally liberal candidate. That's their job. If they don't go along with it, surely they get fired. They provide an avenue for confirmation bias, which is interesting because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, considering most people are liberal because of the strong influence of the (biased) media on them.
So not all media is as liberal as you say. The sad bit is that the source of media is so partisan that we only listen to what we want to hear (that goes both to the right and to the left).
Fox News Channel is the the one right-wing media outlet in a sea of left-wing TV, print, and internet outlets. The actual Fox channel is not very aligned with FNC - FFS they give Seth McFarlane 2 hours of primetime every Sunday night.
I think it's disingenuous to characterize a political stance of a continuation on policy as "liberal". That's what "conservative" means by any dictionary out there. These terms have become utterly useless.
if conservative means "don't change things" and liberal means "try new things" then an establishment candidate which espouses to not change things would be "conservative" while a candidate that wants to do dramatically different and new things would be "liberal".
My guess: "not economic liberalism". The word liberalism has many meanings in different places. Eg in many European countries, it's considered to be mostly an economic stance, as in "not socialism".
In the US, however, the word has a second meaning, which is more about abortion and civil rights and all that than it is about money. I suspect that the GP meant that definition of liberalism by "moral liberalism".
