Yesterday, I woke up to reports of mainstream media expressing their "shock" and "surprise" over the French election results. The leftist alliance led by the New Popular Front secured 182 seats, the most in the parliament, much to the "dismay" of the mainstream media.

The far-right National Rally was pushed back to third place with 143 seats, which the media had predicted was poised to form a government after the first phase of polls last week.

For the past month, mainstream media has been abuzz with the impending rise of the far-right.

Jordan Bardella, the 28-year-old protégé of Marine Le Pen -- a figurehead of the French far-right National Rally (RN) -- was portrayed as the inevitable next prime minister.

The rise of the RN has been significantly fuelled by favourable media exposure, a phenomenon unthinkable a few years ago. This shift can be largely attributed to Vincent Bolloré, a billionaire media mogul who controls an array of TV channels, radio stations, and print media.

Bolloré's influence on the French media landscape is strikingly similar to that of Rupert Murdoch in the United States, whose media empire, including Fox News, has played a pivotal role in shaping the cult of personality of Donald Trump.

But the normalisation of the far-right happened across the mainstream media, not just by outlets owned by conservative Bolloré.

Research by international media watch platforms shows Bardella, the darling of the far right, got more air time than any other candidates during the campaign.

As Al Jazeera's show, Listening Post, aptly noted, "If Bardella comes to power, it would be a victory, in part, secured by France's fourth estate."

Now, please don't misunderstand me. I don't want the liberal media to simply black out a political figure.

For the far-right, this would only add to their advantage because they could then play the victim card even better in their "us vs the elites" rhetoric.

So, my problem is not that the far-right was widely covered in the media; it's that the left, as usual, was forgotten -- even demonised -- with the so-called media elites covertly implying that the "far-left" is as problematic, if not more, than the far-right.

When the so-called mainstream media outlets from around the world tried to "understand" the far-right a bit better, they continued calling the lefts radical, unelectable, and antisemitic, just for their progressive policies, such as increasing taxes on the "filthy rich" and taking a clear stance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

Take the case of an opinion piece published in The Guardian, for example.

It was titled "Jean-Luc Mélenchon is a disaster for the French left -- his response to the attack on Israel proves it".

The author went above and beyond to portray veteran far-left firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon as antisemitic, just because he stood by the children of Gaza when Israeli air force was carpet bombing them.

But it is Mélenchon who stitched together a broader leftist alliance just a month ago and emerged as the biggest winner in the polls.

It's his supporters, mostly the youth, who celebrated in Paris yesterday, with the French flag in one hand and the Palestinan flag in the other.

However, the mainstream media is yet to deliver Mélenchon and his party, France Unbowed their flowers.

Most of the headlines, including those from BBC, The New York Times, Washington Post and more, focus on the "shock defeat" of the far right rather than highlighting the success of the left.

"The New Popular Front appeared to have capitalised on its recent momentum and fears that the far-right party was a threat to French democratic values and institutions. Its supporters took to the streets of Paris on Sunday night to celebrate, although some in France were fearful of what the far left would bring: The largest party in the alliance, France Unbowed, is known for its incendiary far-left politics," wrote the New York Times.

"What just happened in France's shock election?"- was the BBC headline.

This situation brings to mind Noam Chomsky and Edward S Herman's seminal work, "Manufacturing Consent".

Chomsky and Herman argued that media serves the interests of elite groups in society through mechanisms like ownership, advertising, and sourcing.

Media's disproportionate focus on Bardella and the far-right, while marginalising the left, perfectly illustrates their theory. Media ownership concentration allows only the rich (who are likely to pay more taxes under left-wing parties) to set agendas and frame narratives in ways that support their own interests.

Similarly, Jurgen Habermas's theory of the public sphere states that a healthy democracy requires diverse and independent media voices to ensure robust public discourse.

However, when media ownership is concentrated, this diversity is compromised, leading to a homogenised and often biased public sphere.

Jeremy Bernard Corbyn, an icon of the left and former Labour Party supremo, is one victim of such a biased media landscape.

Throughout his tenure as Labour Party chief, he faced allegations of antisemitism for supporting Palestinians but remained vocal. Ousted from his party, he won decisively as an independent in the recent UK polls.

Despite the mainstream media's biased coverage, the

French youth rallied behind the left.

While traditional media can influence public opinion, it no longer monopolises it. Social media platforms have provided alternative avenues for information, allowing diverse voices and perspectives to reach the public.

To conclude, it would be unfair to end this article without giving a full picture of the French polls results.

Although the leftist alliance won the most seats with 182, it falls significantly short of the 289 required to form a majority government.

Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, a loyalist of President Emmanuel Macron, has said he'll offer his resignation, but it's far from clear who could take over.

Unless the leftists and centrists, who do not see eye to eye on most of the issues, fail to form a coalition government, the situation may get real messy real soon.