To me, the issue is not that the mainstream media is leftist to the core, but why. Conspiracy theories aside, I haven't been able to find a reasonable answer to the question. In your travels; have you?
Hey Dan, pour a cup of coffee before you sit down with this one. Enlightening, if not engaging, study ;^)
FGS
Well, FGS, I know you have seen my 9/01 opus,Why Broadcast Journalism isIt is barely possible that you haven't looked at it in a while, tho - and I have been updating it to link in whatever subsequent articles seemed germane and evoked a strong response which seemed to help elucidate the issue of the causes, characteristics, and effects of "Bias in the Media" (tho I prefer the neutral term, "the perspective of journalism" because print journalism is under the First Amendment fully entitled to have a perspective).
Unnecessary and IllegitimateUltimately I think that "Why are journalists pinko?" is the wrong question. I think the true question is, "Why do otherwise intelligent people take the fox's word that he is guarding the chicken coop?" Why would anyone expect that people who buy ink by the carload would do anything other than maximize the influence of people who buy ink by the carload? The more I study the issue, the less reason I see to expect that journalists have any direct incentive to nurture adherence to fixed rules when they have the option of proposing their own new rules.
"Objective" journalism is a game for liberals; if you are conservative you will not claim to be wise because such a claim is the marker of the unwise, of the sophist. And a claim of objectivity is nothing other than a claim of wisdom. This sneaky way of claiming wisdom without getting called a sophist is quite effective as anticonservative politics, and there is in America little market for explicitly anticonservative politics.
In fact since American conservatism is actually more dynamic and less reactionary than leftism, American leftism has had to adopt ever subtler misnomers as the American public has seen through the cruder ones. Although "socialism" as dictionary-defined is not a misnomer for leftism, its coinage using the root "social" is IMHO a deceit - free-market capitalism is social in nature, and its opposite is actually "government"ism (or "politics"ism) rather than "social"ism. "Governmentism" is however too obviously a synonym for tyranny to be a good brand name for an ideology in America. Thus, leftist tyranny has been variously labeled "socialism," "liberalism," "progressivism," and (lately) "moderation." And of course the fact that anticonservatism is the product of people who do nothing but write is a fabulous advantage when a re branding of leftism becomes advantageous.
OTOH conservative journalism can only sail openly under the banner of "conservatism." Anyone who is not liberal but assays to commit journalism is greeted with an overwhelming propaganda barrage from pseudo-objective journalism - "Not a journalist, not objective." Thus "conservative journalist" is considered an oxymoron, but in fact conservatives do indeed do journalism. It's journalism, but it goes under the name "talk radio." I think that Rush is coming alive to the threat of a revival of the Fairness Doctrine which is implicit in "Campaign Finance Reform," and is attacking the idea of "objective journalism" with his "CBS, N-BS, A-BS" formulation. The article starting this thread is obviously wonderful ammunition in that campaign, which is sure to come as the election approaches.
I dunno, FGS, I guess you can call that a conspiracy theory if you want - but everything I discuss is pretty much an open secret, don't you agree?