Replies

The relation between "the MSM" and the Democratic Party is interesting and challenging. Many conservatives claim that the Democratic Party has the MSM in its pocket; you say something simiar when you speak of the MSM as marketing firms whose client is the Democratic Party.
But another way of looking at it is to consider that journalists promote journalism, and believe that journalism should control politics. But of course to speak of journalism controlling politics is to reject the idea of independence among journalists. And by and large that comports with observed reality - journalists don't challenge the "objectivity" of other journalists. They are in full go-along-and-get-along mode. That is understandable if you consider that, for the price of not challenging any other journalist, you buy the ability to be considered "objective" by all other journalists. Flame wars would be bad for profits.
Rush Limbaugh says he isn't a journalist, by which he means that he has a perspective - conservatism - and does not claim to be objective. That is actually a philosophical position - he admits that wisdom exists and he aspires to it - but he does not argue from the assumption that he is wise.
"Objectivity" is difficult to seperate from wisdom. After all, whoever heard of unwise objectivity? So the "objective" journalist actually argues from a claim of his own wisdom. And in so doing he is guilty of sophistry:

I am wise.
You don't even claim to be wise.
Therefore I am right and you are wrong.

My thesis is that "liberalism," "moderation," "centrism," and "progressivism" are virtuous labels given by journalists to people who promote the idea that journalism is important. Journalists reserve "objectivity" as a label which they award only to themselves.

Thanks for a most interesting string. Yesterday, a senior officer of the state ACLU admitted to me that content broadcast on the public airwaves is not, in fact, Constitutionally protected. This isn't news to anyone familiar with the relevant history, but it is a major concession in the context of left-wing activism.

For more on media bias and its historical roots, I could not do better than to recommend Thomas Frank's The Conquest of Cool. This remarkable work of cultural history documents the historical relationships among the entertainment, journalism, and advertising industries and radical politics from the 1950s onward. It is a damning indictment of media culture, the Rosetta Stone of media bias. Frank's status as a major lib only enhances its credibility.