What makes you think that? Generally speaking, corporations are profit oriented, so I can understand how corporations would not be far leftists, as having their corporation confiscated by the government/workers would be pretty stupid. However, an individual corporation could do quite well under a left-liberal economic regime.
Suppose you have an internet company that also owns a television network. That internet company might be able to destroy all of its competitors if a certain regulation is passed. Sure, the regulation would cost them as well, but the increased profits from their new monopolist position would more than make up for those losses. Is it not conceivable that the corporation's television network might not take a more pro-regulatory stance whenever the proposed regulation is being considered in Congress? (All of this assumes, of course, that the content and bias of a network is determined by the board of directors, which I'm not sure is true).
Even if we say that the corporations are never economic left-liberals, that still leaves them free to be social left-liberals. If a news broadcast is constantly airing anti-gun, anti-smoking, anti-hunting, or anti-homschooling stories, that makes them liberally biased in my book, even if they're not calling for higher taxes or more government spending.
And a lot of the CEO's are social liberals. Good point, and then there's this: The corporations don't exercise a lot of control over news content, except for sometimes killing stories that put their businesses in a negative light. They tend to stay away from the purely political stuff.
I am not sure if I get your point here. If an individual corporation could do quite well under a left-liberal economic regime, shouldn’t that be a good thing. But I do not see a majority or a minority of corporations advocating "left -liberal" economic policy
Suppose you have an internet company that also owns a television network. That internet company might be able to destroy all of its competitors if a certain regulation is passed. Sure, the regulation would cost them as well, but the increased profits from their new monopolist position would more than make up for those losses. Is it not conceivable that the corporation's television network might not take a more pro-regulatory stance whenever the proposed regulation is being considered in Congress? (All of this assumes, of course, that the content and bias of a network is determined by the board of directors, which I'm not sure is true).
But if corporations do own and pay for the advertising, then the editors and news people, will be more reluctant to do investigative stories that might harm the corporate sponsors, the news people and "analysts" then just become the mouthpieces of the corporations. We saw that with the analysts recommending Enron stock. The whole idea with the 4th Estate is to question and investigate the powers that be...do you think the mass media is still an independent voice?
Even if we say that the corporations are never economic left-liberals, that still leaves them free to be social left-liberals. If a news broadcast is constantly airing anti-gun, anti-smoking, anti-hunting, or anti-homschooling stories, that makes them liberally biased in my book, even if they're not calling for higher taxes or more government spending.
I am sorry; I do not see a lot of anti-gun, anti-hunting, or anti-home schooling reports...even though I do see anti-smoking commercials. I now see pro-bush, pro-war, pro-corporations, and pro-Republican "news" stories...Can you honestly say that media is going after bush as they did Clinton?