The media? That makes zero sense.
Here, let me give you an example. Here is some of what was posted in this thread...
"Homosexuals are polyamerous, changing partners frequently for the satisfaction of sinful flesh, it's all about themselves, their own desires, their own needs, there's no love, only lust. If you think they can maintain relationships, raise kids and manage work life balance, that's an illusion that only exists on screen, it's all an act."
Now to you, that's not hate speech. IOW, you see no hate at all in those words. I wonder if you would feel the same if someone posted here...
"Christians are pedophiles, swapping children among themselves for their own sexual satisfaction, it's all about their own sick desires and needs. There is no compassion for children, only lust. If you think Christians can actually be good with children and Sunday School classes are a good thing, that's an illusion and a front for their child trafficking."
Given that the typical definition of "hate speech" is along the lines of "offensive, discriminatory, and/or intolerant speech that targets a specific group because of who they are (such as race, religion or gender) in order to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against against them", I'd be very interested in hearing how neither of the above constitute hate speech.