A journalist would call me cynical because I attempt to explain journalism's liberal agenda as
Certainly the two are not mutually exclusive; my theory allows that the journalist took the job in the first place because he was a leftist, and the leftist wants to con people into voting against their own long-run interests. But the job allows him to do that only because people buy newspapers, which are profitable only if/as they draw attention. And the strategies for drawing and keeping attention - what I have suggested are entertainment strategies - amount to pretending to tell "all the news that's fit to print" but delivering negativity and superficiality which systematically filters out the conservative themes and amplifies the anti conservative themes in "what's going on".
I'm saying that the innate tendencies of journalism produce a liberal outlook, that liberalism is a planted axiom in the kind of story selection which makes journalism profitable. And I stipulate that the kind of person who signs on to do the job of reporting that particular kind of information is naturally going to be a leftist to begin with. Mutually reinforcing tendencies.
But in my model the liberal politician does not, in the first instance, corruptly motivate the journalist. The journalist's natural tendencies motivate and reward the liberal politician. Liberal politicians are the journalist's kind of people, and there is a revolving door between liberal politics and journalism. Poster Boy, George Stephanopolis. There is not, OTOH, a revolving door between conservative politics and journalism. Just not the same kind of people.