If they were smart they would do a really tortured version of a cultural hegemony argument where liberals being overrepresented in media constrains the range of allowable discourse in respectable conversations to favor liberals over time by sheer inertia.

However, they aren't booksmart, at least not in that way, so they usually don't have a theory at all. They just present themselves as completely neutral and non-partisan observers, and then collect anecdotes that are intuitively gross to their audience. "Look at this person being treated unfairly" "Look at these radicals, they are going too far" "Why are liberals talking about this but not this." etc. etc.

This is me editorializing but I think many IDW, and heterodox-people are naturally distrustful of formal theories because those are too political, orthodox and group-thinky .Instead they prefer to just have a range of figures share the same talking points, examples and conversational tropes and let the politics and theory be invisible in the background. The conversations just tend to become shared narratives over time, because that's what happens when a relatively small group of people spends a lot of time sharing intuitions.

And even when they do craft theories, the single most common trope they have that is to explain in scientific language why the conversations they have aren't going in the way they want or making the impact they should. A sort of shorthand for why so many people are too irrational to listen to or talk to them.