As Rupert Murdoch mulls the sale of entertainment assets, notably his movie studio, reported suitors include Disney, Comcast, Verizon Communications Inc. and Sony Corp. Not Mother Jones, Salon, the Nation, George Soros, Elizabeth Warren or the Democratic National Committee.

But the power of caricature is potent and it includes the press as privacy invading, circulation grabbing liberals. That’s always been dubious, especially if you look at corporate ownership. Now, you’ve got not just unceasing consolidation but the unceasing influence of folks of distinctly conservative ideology.

The aggressively conservative Sinclair is primed to become the biggest local TV broadcaster as its purchase of Tribune Media await final approval. The Kochs are said to back a purchase of Time Inc. David Pecker, whose American Media owns the National Enquirer and is a chum of Donald Trump, just bought Us Weekly and is was said to exhibit initial desire for Jann Wenner’s remaining 51 percent stake in up-for-sale Rolling Stone. Now the frontrunners are owners of Variety, Women’s Wear Daily and Bleacher Report, as well as a music executive, Irving Azoff, backed by cranky cable mogul-sports owner Jimmy Dolan.

AT&T, whose spokespersons don’t include Bernie Sanders or Nancy Pelosi, seeks approval for its purchase of Time Warner and CNN. And, of course, there’s Murdoch mulling a sale of some assets.

“Through most of modern American history, news organizations were owned by people and companies that strongly supported the status quo,” says David Boardman, dean of the School of Media and Communication at Temple University. “The publishers were, at their essence, paragons and promoters of business.

“The people who worked for them in the newsroom were—especially in the post-Watergate era—idealists who believed in an activist government and an aggressive, social-justice-oriented press. That has long been the nature of the beast that is attracted to a profession with relatively little monetary upside.

“When newspapers, news magazines and three networks were the true gatekeepers of information, these two forces—the right-leaning bosses and the left-leaning scribes—mitigated each other. Even the sainted Kay Graham said after Watergate that, ‘The press these days should be rather careful about its role. We may have acquired some tendencies about over-involvement that we had better overcome.’

“With the emergence of Fox News, however, the bosses saw that there might be more money to be made on the poles than in the middle. . . . And now, Trump and Fake News and Enemies of the People have created a frenzy of fear that the Right will silence journalists. Little chance of that. The best business opportunity these days is likely back in the middle, and most of these companies are far more about shareholders’ return than they are about ideology. ”

Media analyst Ken Doctor, who has written recently about the threat to fact-based journalism from consolidation, notes how, “The whole fake news meme is a caricature, and one imported by Rupert Murdoch from downmarket British tabs. With Fox, he both lowered the American discourse and opened up the eyes of the Sinclairs and the Bannons of what more could be done.” And the Sinclairs and Bannons are only becoming more influential. Not to mention the Mercers.

Matthew Baum, a political scientist at Harvard’s Kennedy School, says, “Conservatives, however, mostly point to the political views of journalists at mainstream media outlets, who tend to lean Democratic, as evidence. So, if you believe that reporters’ work reflects their personal ideologies more than their professional norms, perhaps there would be liberal bias as a consequence. Of course, the core journalistic norm of balance and objectivity run directly counter to that. So at minimum it isn’t obvious why personal political views would trump professional norms.”