Reality has a liberal bias, and I'm OK with that.

I would say that education and intelligence have a liberal bias -- I recognize that's a somewhat inflammatory statement in today's world, where we conceive of a black-and-white polarization between liberal and conservative, with a whole ton of preconceptions about what each of these words means. So to clarify, education and intelligence tend to propagate viewpoints that are more subtle, more nuanced, and more "radical", in the sense that those things tend to challenge complacent certainty associated with conservatism: the confidence that what we already know is true, proven, and deserving of protection. If conservatism is the force which protects the value of what was learned in the past, progressivism/liberalism is the force which challenges that structure and attempts to provoke novel ways to view things, novel solutions for problems, novel ways to combine the pieces to make new wholes. Conservatism tends to be more static: it hangs on to what was and protects it. Liberalism is more dynamic, it wants to move forward and is more ready to let go of the past if something isn't pulling its weight. Education and intelligence tend to favor dynamicism, because they're exploratory in nature: they ask questions, they move around, they're not content with what is already known or believed. So to the degree that media members tend to be more educated and above-average in intelligence than the general population, they tend to have that dynamic and exploratory mindset which is more readily associated with liberalism than conservatism. That doesn't mean there aren't intelligent and well-educated conservatives, there are... but the center of gravity tends to be lower on the education and intelligence scale, and they're less well represented in the media.