Replies

Why is the media on the left? Why the contempt for workers?

First question first: Why do you call journalism “the media?”
Because you mean nothing else, anymore - and you shouldn’t. Originally the use of “the media” included the leftist tendencies in movies and TV drama. But, people seem to have absorbed the lesson (tho not likely from my having argued it here, I’m not that optimistic about my own influence) that you can’t censor fiction, the most you can do is shame fictional “non”fiction.
Next question: Why is journalism monolithic? That, I have concluded, follows naturally from the fact that journalists talk - to each other - a lot:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
And people of the trade of journalism not only read each other’s output, they get most of their information from the wire services. Thus, they read each other’s input as well as output. Wire service journalism is group-think.
But what is the nature of journalism at its core? It is the reporting of news that will attract attention. Does the news that I plan to build a house qualify? Probably not. Does the fact that I have bought a lot qualify? Probably not. Each increment of the process is mundane, and after a period of months a house appears and I move in. With no excitement. But let that house burn down, and what is the reaction??? The change in value - from no house, to a house, took place gradually and predictably - but the destruction of the same house took place overnight. The change in value is much quicker, and it is negative instead of positive. Journalism is about bad news, almost exclusively. It is scarcely too much to say that “good news is advertising.”
So journalism is all the same, and journalism is negative. And yet, knowing it is negative, journalism claims to be objective. There are objections to this. The first is that it is an arrogant claim; no one can know that they actually are objective. Secondly, it is a self-negating claim, in that the sine qua non of any attempt at objectivity is candor about the reasons why you might not be objective. The claim of actual objectivity - not just of diligent effort towards objectivity - is precisely the opposite of such candor. And third, the claim that negativity is objectivity is cynicism.
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
For “some writers” substitute “journalists” (“the media,” if you must). For “society” substitute “workers” (if you must; actually “society” is the correct word). Recognize that to identify “a blessing” (society) with an "evil” (government, even if “necessary”) can only be described as cynical about society, and naïveté about government.
"The contempt for workers” is cynicism about society. “The media” is “on the left” because it is cynical about society, and naive about government. Which I take to be the proper definition of “socialism.” Or, “on the left."

Journalists are also fascinated by their own words and the way they can string them creatively creatively and convincingly. It is often style v. content with cleverness a valuable attribute of the story or article. Journalist writing style varies little from that of the novelist whom the journalist would like to be. There is a big difference in writing for truth and writing for attention.

you formatted that as a if quoted from elsewhere. Care to share where?

huh. that makes a lot of sense

“But what is the nature of journalism at its core? It is the reporting of news that will attract attention.”
No.
“Attracting attention” is just one way journalism fulfills it’s nature.
It’s nature it’s core, it’s purpose is to make money.

That’s usually not a problem, or at least is better than any alternative.

With the Welfare State, journalism is conflicted by welfare being a government subsidy for consumer spending- and all commercial media benefit from that subsidy.

Consider that even “politically Correct” speech and behavior are just the language of marketers- which is esigned to offend the fewest possible customers.