Replies

Journalists don’t need no stinkin’ internal cabals. All of mainstream journalism belongs to the Associated Press.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)
The Associated Press newswire is a virtual meeting of all major journalistic institutions, and it has been operating continually since before the Civil War. Since Adam Smith’s dictum predicts that they must by now be conspiring against the public, it is only left to understand what is the interest of journalism, in contradistinction to the interest of the public?

The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors. And as we cannot always be satisfied merely with being admired, unless we can at the same time persuade ourselves that we are in some degree really worthy of admiration; so we cannot always be satisfied merely with being believed, unless we are at the same time conscious that we are really worthy of belief. As the desire of praise and that of praise-worthiness, though very much a-kin, are yet distinct and separate desires; so the desire of being believed and that of being worthy of belief, though very much a-kin too, are equally distinct and separate desires.
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments
The public interest lies in doing wise things, and not doing unwise things. The interest of journalism is in persuading the public that journalists are worth believing - and worthy of being being our leaders. Do I exaggerate when I say that journalists want to be our leaders? Before you dismiss the idea out of hand, first consider that Lenin was a writer, and Mussolini was a journalist. Then reflect on the fact that journalists don’t do anything, their forte is criticism. Theodore Roosevelt famously asserted that
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . . who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .
Journalists don’t do anything, but boy, can they criticize. Hoo, boy! Can they criticize! But there is one class of people whom they never criticize. Why, and who? The reason they do not criticize certain identifiable groups is professional courtesy. The groups which journalists do not criticize are other professional criticizers:

unionists.
teachers
socialist politicians.
There is a revolving door between journalism and liberal politics. A George Stephanopolis can move from being a “liberal” political operative to being an “objective” journalist, without so much as the swearing of an oath - but there is no path from “conservative” politician to “objective” journalist.
The fundamental principle of socialism is not “government ownership of the means of production,” or any such claptrap as that. The fundamental principle of socialism is that Theodore Roosevelt was wrong, and that the critic is superior to the performer.
Because the critic - provided he adheres to professional courtesy and doesn’t attack other criticizers - has good intentions and pure motives.