[conservatism_IS_compassion]

As long as mainstream journalists share a similar view of the world, that world can never be reported “objectively”. And that is why the so-called alternative media have had such an impact. But don’t these bloggers also have a slanted view of the issues? Of course they do, but, in most cases, they acknowledge it and the consumers can factor in that slant when they read.

And why, pray tell, do "mainstream journalists share a similar view of the world?" I submit that it is nothing more than simple economics. Adam Smith could have told you that; it is nothing more than a manifestation of the routine conspiring of tradesmen against the public. The cardinal rule of whoso would be a "mainstream" journalist is, not to engage in flame wars with other mainstream journalists. That, after all, would be to commit the folly of voluntarily picking a fair fight.

So instead the "mainstream" journalist picks on anyone important who is not a mainstream journalist - and who is also not a toady who parrots the line that whatever "mainstream journalism" mentions is of first importance. Those who toady to "mainstream journalism" are rewarded with good PR, including - until they ran it into the ground - the label "liberal." Those who do not toady to journalism are considered fair game.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[E.G.C.]

Media bias bump.

[Milhous]

The cardinal rule of whoso would be a "mainstream" journalist is, not to engage in flame wars with other mainstream journalists. That, after all, would be to commit the folly of voluntarily picking a fair fight.

Most excellent observation.