To my way of thinking, they're a bunch of wimps clothed in 1st amendment and "the pen is mightier than the sword" rags. Style/symbolism over substance is their only weapon. A weapon that has worked only too well on their target audience and an apathetic electorate.
FGS
All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.O'Sullivan was right, but his article announcing his law lamely cited a few examples and just left it. The reason his law is true lies in the Newspeak definitions of ideological labels:
Notice that "objective," "moderate," and "centrist" are classical virtues and are positive labels; likewise "liberal" and "progressive" are American virtues and are positive labels - at least to the extent that their Newspeak definitions have not been realized by the public. OTOH "conservatism" is not an American virtue - drilling for oil or developing genetically modified corn, IOW progress, is something American "conservatives" favor.
- objective: reliably promoting the interests of Big Journalism. (usage: always applied to journalists who are members in good standing; never applied to anyone but a journalist)
- liberal: see "objective," except that the usage is reversed: (usage: never applied to journalists; always applied to anyone but a journalist)
- progressive: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal."
- moderate: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal."
- centrist: see "liberal." (usage: same as for "liberal."
- conservative: rejecting the idea that journalism is a higher calling than providing food, shelter, clothing, fuel, and security; adhering to the dictum of Theodore Roosevelt that:
"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena(usage: applies to people who - unlike those labeled liberal/progressive/moderate/centrist, cannot become "objective" by getting a job as a journalist, and probably cannot even get a job as a journalist.)(antonym:"objective")
- "right-wing": see, "conservative."