Replies

I have seen too many instances of media putting the party line ahead of personal gain, ahead of friendship, of honor, of honesty, and even ahead of profits, to accept that their primary motivation is anything other than the furtherance of the leftist—which is to say, Satan’s—agenda.

True. But the other aspect of the situation is the need for an explanation of the secular mechanism by which the left has take over "the media." It took me decades to sort it out, but it's like everything else:
This problem, when solved, will be simple.
From the founding era to the Civil War era, newspapers were associated with political parties and the perspectives of their respective publishers was no secret to anyone; the opinions which those papers projected were mostly what the papers were about. The papers didn't have privileged access to news not in principle available to the general public, and consequently newspapers were not merely outlets for news. Indeed, most newspapers were weeklies rather than dailies, and some had no deadline at all and just went to press when the printer was good and ready. It is only with the advent of the telegraph and the Associated Press monopoly (that is not an overstatement of the case) that claims of the "Priesthood of the reporter" (i.e., the claim that all journalists were objective) became central to the business model of the newspapers. That claim is essential to the great value of the very expensive AP newswire.
It is the doctrine of the priesthood of the reporter which leads directly to the dolorous influences you cite. The tendency inheres in fallen human nature. The empowerment of monopoly journalism is the mechanism by which it has metastasized.