Indeed. But of course my point is that the decision to buy the paper at all is an entertainment decision - we buy the paper because we are bored. And because the product the public actually buys is entertainment, not enlightenment (although positioning the reader as being interested in enlightenment is a valuable marketing tool for the newspaper), the actual mission of the journalist differs from the (putative) mission of the historian - the focus of the journalist is on the negative things which grip your attention. And such things tend to grip your attention even if those things are distasteful to you.Which explains why it can be profitable for the journalist to publish stories with anticonservative themes. Even conservatives are attracted to the stories, even though they yell back at the reporter as they read them. Indeed there scarcely exists a conservative front page in the country - Washington Times and NY Post might be exceptions. But the Wall Street Journal definitely is not.
There are many who don't. I used to buy (now I give my money to FR) news serivices to be informed. I used to buy The Economist and the Christian Science Monitor. Your projection of your values upon the purchase decision, in that respect, induces you to miss the purpose of the owners of the news and information service in biasing that material to the left.
Sheep are easier to control. The media have every reason to direct you to entertainment to reap the advantages of hypnopaedia.