...And the republicans accuse every Democratic president of being a Socialist (with implications that it is the same as being a Communist).

Really? Are you sure?

Interestingly, the main people and companies who are declaring the media to be "objectively liberal" seem to be fairly well positioned to gain influence by convincing people of that idea and spreading it at every opportunity. For instance, companies like Fox News benefit by convincing viewers that no other news sources (or at least ones that are to the left of them, which is the majority, since Fox News opinion sections at least are fairly far to the right) are to be trusted. They don't seem to be terribly incentivized to report the situation accurately.

Sometimes it can be hard to determine the difference between "balance" (aka "fair and balanced") and propaganda or astroturfing. In any case, I am more interested in news sources that report objectively verifiable and accurate information than I am in news sources that try to influence me into a particular way of thinking about the world to something which benefits them. With that in mind, both left sources (MSNBC, CNN, Huffington, Mother Jones) and right sources (Fox News, Red State, Breitbart, Sinclair Broadcasting Group's various local TV stations) are disqualified, since they were created by or are owned by partisans and are frequently used to push partisan agendas, often at the expense of the truth, or by using cherrypicked news stories that only present one side of an issue (aka lying by omission). That's not news. It's just propaganda with a dressing of news to make it seem respectable.

Claims by right-wing propaganda outlets that the media as a whole is liberal are not, in my opinion, credible. Some parts of the media are. Others are not. The more far-right a news outlet is, the more easily it can make this claim ("everybody is liberal compared to us!"), and yet at the same time, the less meaningful it is. (Of course they are! If you are on the far right, everybody is left of you, by definition!) Also, the amount of right-biased media has grown substantially over the past ten years and has become its own echo chamber as powerful as the left-biased echo chamber ever was.

Regardless, the oft-repeated claim that, essentially, all media which is not right-wing is therefore left-wing is not supported by evidence. The reality is much more nuanced.

It is not hypocracy. You are failing to understand the difference between scientific belief and religious belief (aka "faith") and are treating them as if they are the same. They are not.

Saying something is mathematically consistent with (some) observed results is different from saying it has been proven, and is different from saying that the scientist "believes" it. In fact, in science (as opposed to mathematics), nothing is proven: different theories are supported by different amounts of evidence, and that's all. Some theories (e.g. gravitation, plate tectonics, the germ theory of disease, quantum mechanics, conservation of momentum, evolution) are supported by a LOT of evidence, and thus hard to overturn, while for others (e.g. the theory described in this article), the evidence is interesting but scant at the moment, and research will be required to determine if more can be found, or if contradicting evidence is instead found, or if another theory explains the existing evidence better. Real working scientists know this, and generally report their findings in very careful language expressing the degree of certainty or uncertainty that they have. For a scientist to "believe" something on a personal level, there must generally be a lot of evidence in favor of it, and little apparently contradicting evidence, since ultimately it is the evidence which is important, not the belief. And such scientific beliefs can be overturned if more evidence arrives that contradicts them.

Reporters in the popular press who are reporting on scientific results, however, are typically not inclined to be so careful, since their understanding is typically limited, and also because wild claims and bold headlines sell newspapers and magazines, and ultimately provide paychecks for reporters. As such, it is a mistake to infer from the fact that a popular press reporter breathlessly declares "Scientists believe X" that those scientists do indeed hold a belief in X with the same kind of religious conviction that, for instance, a Christian is typically encouraged to believe that the events described in the Bible are true and accurate.

It is likewise a mistake to assume that because a scientist is advancing a theory or working on gathering evidence for a theory that the scientist "believes" it. Usually, the situation is more that the scientist believes that there is enough evidence in support of the theory that it is interesting to pursue, to see if the theory can be made to explain more observed facts that other, competing theories. That theory may (and probably will) eventually later be supplanted by yet other, newer theories that explain even more evidence, and scientists understand this and expect it (this is, after all, fundamental to the scientific method). That's not remotely the same as belief in the religious sense, in which a person declares permanent, immutable belief in a particular set of explanations for the universe and things in it, and is unwilling to change that belief, even in the face of new evidence (and instead ignores or avoids contradicting evidence in favor of the existing belief). Unwavering belief of that sort would make you very good at religion, but very bad at science.