Replies

We all know the perspective that the Washington Post operates from. I would like to understand "why". I am sure they have been "bought" by some mechanism when it comes to ME terrorism.

I was 35 years old before I even knew that there was “bias in the media,” and over 65 when I finally got a really satisfactory understanding of your “why” question.

We speak of “the media” as a single entity, even though there are very many news outlets. The first question, then, is, “Why do journalists act in a politically monopolistic fashion?” And it turns out the Adam Smith nailed that 3/4 of a century before the cause of the problem even arose:
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
If the “people of the same trade” happen to be journalists, they would be entirely immune from any effort to prevent them from “meeting together.” Because, after all, they can read each others’ stuff. But that was the case all along; it just happens that something happened in the 1840s to transform journalists’ “meetings" and metastasize them. It was the telegraph. Samuel Morse’s famous demonstration line between Baltimore and Washington was demonstrated in 1844, and by 1848 the precursor to the Associated Press was founded. And the AP “wire” is nothing other than a full-blown, continuous virtual meeting of all major journalists which has been going on since memory of living man runneth not to the contrary.
So Adam Smith’s dictum about monopoly behavior predicts flatly that journalists must be conspiring against the public by now - and indeed, must have begun doing so long before you or I were even born.

But the second question is, “Why does that ‘conspiracy’ run against conservatives? What is their game?” My answer to that question is best illustrated by Theodore Roosevelt’s “man in the arena” speech. The applicable, famous part of which begins, “It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . .” IMHO things fall into place when you realize that “the man in the arena” is anyone who works to a bottom line, and stands or falls on his own merit. And the critic? First and foremost among the critics (who are legion) are journalists. The journalist lusts for credit for holding everyone “in the arena” to a high standard. And anyone else who criticizes and second guesses the man in the arena is helpful to the journalist. If you ask, “What is the very opposite of giving credit to the man in the arena?” would it not be arbitrarily dismissing the man in the arena’s claim to credit? I say it is. And I say that there is a very current and very pithy statement of that perspective. I refer to, “You didn’t build that.”
In my opinion there is no need to look for proof that the Washington Post or any other journalistic institution has been bought. They all joined the Borg when they signed up with the AP. Note that my analysis actually does not depend on the fact that the AP is dominant in the US, because even if there were five big wire services with similar market shares, each one of them would consist of a bunch of journalists - and would, on that account, have the same ideological incentives and lead to the same result.
ProgressingAmerica takes the approach of looking for individuals who actively and consciously plotted the “progressive” coup of journalists against the public; his thesis can be found here:

Government by Journalism - The Road to America