I took nothing at all from the excerpt; I found the prose impenetrable.It is patent that nobody but the establishment can possibly get away with the presumption of objectivity. Objectivity is simply a code word for wisdom. Journalists claim that everyone who agreees with them is virtuous and wise, and those whom they criticise - those who provide our necessities of security, food, clothing, shelter, fuel, and so forth (represented more or less faithfully by the Republican Party) are stupid and evil.
With all respect to your intended meaning, I have trouble with that language:
- MSM - "mainstream media" - is to me a woefully miscast expression:
- "media" is a plural noun, and you are talking about a singular phenomenon - "the media" are all of one accord to such an extent that no one supposes htat ABC or NBC is willing to contradict CBS - or The New York Times, etc.
- although fictional movies and TV shows clearly manifest the same perspective that Big Journalism does, the legitimate subject of criticism actually is the tendentious partisanship of so-called "objective" journalism.
- "self loathing whites" is an expression I loathe to hear Rush using. After all, the borg of "liberals" (synonyms: "progressives," "moderates," or "centrists" or - except in that the usage only is applied to journalism - "objective") is nothing if not arrogant. The very last thing they are is "self-loathing" or "guilty" feeling. They intentionally cause that confusion by the use of the non-inclusive "we." They heap calumny on "we" without the slightest implication that they hold themselves at all responsible for what "we" have done or plan to do.
Just as the "liberals" / "progressives" / "moderates" / "centrists" / "objective journalists" are all Newspeak for "us good guys," "we" or "us" are Newspeak codes for "you bad guys." Right along with "conservatives" or "right wingers" - or the now-obsolete old-time favorite, "right wing cold warriors."