What I was thinking about even more than network TV news was the old newspaper, which separated news (dispassionate, interest in conveying objective facts) from opinion, which was placed on segregated op-ed pages. Of course, many of the MSM newspapers in those days were acually owned by entrepreneurial individuals and families, and quite a few major ones were unabashedly conservative and Republican on their editorial pages. With the contraction of the newspaper industry and the shifts in ownership of the newspapers that now survive, there is very little diversity in either news coverage or opinion in the major metro dailies, and it is rare to see a story that is “dispassionate,” “independent,” and objective.
Allow me to inject another interpretation into the discussion.
Howard Fineman of Newsweek wrote an extremely interesting column in the wake of the 2004 election. In it, he admitted that there were actually three parties in Washington -- the Democrat party, the Republican party and the Media party.
In the column, he was lamenting the fact that the Media party had gone all out for Kerry...but had somehow failed. And that this might mark a historical watershed, where the Media party could no longer automatically get what it wanted.
I thought this was a very illuminating revelation by Fineman. And it led me to consider the question of "Who's leading who? when it comes to Democrat politics".
The Media Party and the Democrat Party are definitely allied. But which one is the senior member? Who serves as the majority of one?
Are we now seeing a three-way struggle for control of the Democrat Party? A triangular battle between the Media Party, Soros and the nutroots, and national Democrat leadership?
God only knows the Democrat rank & file no longer have any say in party affairs.