Replies

Many American newspapers and other media organs -- especially the network news broadcasts -- get their leads and inspiration from the Times. Another way of saying this is that these other organizations are lazy. They copy, rather than create. Since the major network new shows and their anchors share the editorial sympathies of the New York Times, including of course their Presidential preference, the same patterns of omission and commission in the Times, are repeated later in the day on television.

But a better way of putting it is that the Constitution rules out government censorship of journalism because journalism is just politics, and cannot be otherwise. That means that broadcast journalism, based as it is on the censorship of the many without broadcast licenses in favor of the government-favored few who do, has a core lack of legitimacy and perforce must herd together with the biggest print journalisms to create a pseudo-objective consensus.
It is possible to evaluate the perspective of any given journalism, be it The New York Times or the Fox News Channel, only from a historical perspective. From a historical perspective it is easy to see that the Democratic Party has been anti military since John Kerry threw the idea of honor in military medals over the White House fence. And it is easy to see that journalism supported the Democratic Party in that position. And it is easy to see that those whom the journalists and other Democrats labeled "Right Wing Cold Warriors" were vindicated by history.
The only conclusion is that "objective journalism" is a cabal of those who uses their propaganda power to define the term. And that that cabal has no historical record of actual objectivity. And that government-sponsored (broadcast) journalism which propagandizes to the effect that it is objective but which has no record of actual objectivity is illegitimate propaganda.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate