There is a concept that has been floating around for a while now called Manufacturing Consent. It was put forward by Noam Chomski and Edward Herman. I think the idea has merit in some regards but I have some doubts in general.
Yes I think the mass media is consensual part of the propaganda machine of the left. On the other hand, when they report on what the right is saying, and when the right report on the left, it interrupts the propaganda. It works if you can pick apart the other sides arguments, but it's much harder for he left to pull apart the arguments made on the right, although the not the party line republicans. There is no doubt that their intent is to push the agenda of one side or the other. They lie constantly to create the illusion that their chosen agenda is what everyone should want.
What I really see happening is the manufacturing of conflict between the left and right. I think the reason is fairly simple, if we're fighting with each other we're not looking at the manipulations of the power elite. Hence the growing divide between right and left. The left has for a long time viewed capitalism with incredulity. In the last 30 years, I think a lot of that incredulity is the result of being told we live in a capitalist system, when in fact, since 1913 (or earlier) we've lived in a Crony Capitalist system - entirely NOT the same thing.
Many of the wars that we get involved in make no sense and I believe we are led into them by the same people who use crony capitalism, who seek to destroy the free market, who seek the new world order. I suspect move of the people in mass media don't even know their helping the cause that's destroying them. This manufactured conflict is I think, it's non an uncommon occurrence. We see it in Race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama, men who try to turn every occurrence of black and white interaction into a racial conflict. We see it in journalist and government support for terrorist, Hamas in Palestine, and Al-Queda in Syria and Lebanon. I think it even happens on F*ceB00k - huh, yeah I got the idea from reading a an article link from Maggie's Farm concerning "Likes"
Progressives going for the Nanny State, Republicans going for the Corporate State, both supporting wars that amount to colonial aggression under the guise of spreading democracy. Democracy is Mob Rule - why do so many people think that's a good thing? Look at the riots in Ferguson if you think Mob Rule is a good thing - there's your mob. It's were all mobs go eventually. Without a culture that promotes morals based on a sound philosophy, you end up with situational ethics, which is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one - right up there with Corporate Ethics.
When they start telling you to hate someone for what they say or believe - it's time to start looking to your own beliefs - do they stand up to logic, are they formed from a first level philosophy? If you look at the base of the Libertarian philosophy - despite all the differences, the basics are pretty much the same:
Individuals own them selves and the production of their efforts.
Coercion is immoral.
Individuals have the right to own property.
Self Defense is a Duty to self and third parties where Coercion is used.
Some would simplify and say, The Non-Agression Principle, and Property Ownership, and I'm okay with that because they lead to self defense, and one can assume self ownership.
If you can't get to where they say everyone should be, from that starting place - or what ever starting place you decided is true, then maybe you should examine their agenda before you join the revolution.