Replies

As soon as yeatw barred the IG access there should have a big blowup.

Absolutely

Why not? What failed?

Ideological competition in journalism is the planted axiom of the First Amendment. Everyone has the right to be hearable, and therefore “the truth will out.” Theoretically.
But, there is another theory:
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 (1776)
. . . and that theory prevails. People of the “trade” of journalism do, and arguably have to, “meet together” - at least virtually. The Associated Press began (as the New York Associated Press) only four years after the 1844 demonstration of Morse's Baltimore - Washington telegraph. The AP was aggressively monopolistic from its inception, and already in the Nineteenth Century people began to question its concentration of propaganda power. But back then, newspapers were, and had always been, idiosyncratic and dominated by their printers - everyone expected opinionated journalism and made allowances for it. So when the AP replied to its critics that its stories mostly came from its member newspapers, and they famously did not agree on just about anything - and that the AP itself was therefore objective - its defense was successful.
There may have been a grain of truth in that argument in the Nineteenth Century, but in the long run the fact that the AP “wire” was and is nothing but a virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets brought Adam Smith’s analysis into play. A “meeting” of all major news outlets - not about “merriment and diversion” but precisely about business - has been ongoing since memory of living man runneth not to the contrary. The consequence is that the absence of “a conspiracy against the public” among journalists is not plausible.
The obvious questions questions are, “What form would such a conspiracy take?” and “If such a ‘conspiracy' exists, why is it not obvious?” Adam Smith again:
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 . . .
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 (1759)
Thus we see that journalists want to be believed, and therefore have a motive to “go along and get along” with each other in order to maximize the respect they get from the public. This implies that people who resist “joining the Borg” of the journalism establishment will be marginalized and squeezed out of the business. Anyone who questions the objectivity of a journalist is automatically categorized as “not objective, not a journalist.”
The business of journalism has rules which are optimized, not to benefit the public, but to make journalism profitable. One of the most famous is, “‘Man Bites Dog’ not ‘Dog Bites Man.’” Another is that “If it bleeds, it leads.” Both focus journalism on the negative - in the former case, that means not only “bad” but also the opposite of what usually happens. Which means that a story of abuse by someone or some organization which is considered trustworthy by the public makes the best story for preventing the public from ignoring the news.”
The upshot is that journalism has motive, and via the AP has opportunity, to collude against the public by unifying in projecting a cynical view of society. But a cynical view of society corresponds to a naive view of government, as the radical notion that “things couldn’t be worse” illustrates. If “things couldn’t be worse,” government must do something. Conservatives always know that things could be worse - and, with increased government, almost certainly will.
I attribute the fact that huge swathes of the public are not conservative to the first point in the Smith quote - "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 short answer to your question is that journalism favors Democrats.