Not having researched media history in anything approaching the in-depth and systematic manner that LS has done, I can only answer in terms of general impressions.
It seems to me that the most important development in US journalism during the 20th century was the emergence of a highly-centralized hierarchy, in which The New York Times and The Washington Post acquired a dominant status not unlike that of Pravda and Izvestia in the old Soviet Union.
To this day, journalists in all media tend to regard The New York Times and The Washington Post as a gauge of which stories have been approved for mass consumption and which stories are considered beyond the pale.
Thus the Times's motto, "All the News That's Fit to Print" acquired a literal meaning during the last century.
A friend of mine who is editorial page editor of a major northeastern newspaper with no organizational ties to The New York Times frequently complains that his superiors will not approve the coverage of any story that has not first been covered by The New York Times.
Thus the 20th century saw the emergence of a pyramidal hierarchy in US journalism that looked something like this:
Inasmuch as the entire pyramid took its marching orders from the two newspapers at the top, it would seem that the first two questions we need to ask are:
1. How did these two newspapers acquire such power?
2. Why do these two newspapers tend to support the Democratic Party (which is not quite the same thing as supporting the left — or at least it didn't used to be)?
. . . the first two questions we need to ask are:
Quite. Indeed, to the extent that nominally independent souces of information are in fact not independent, serious issues of what would in less significant arenas of human endeavor be prosecutable "conspiracy in restraint of trade" seem to be raised.Worse, as is becoming aparent enough to raise some comment among analysts, the Democratic Party is becoming ever less independent of this "conspiracy" - and all three branches of government is on board McCain-Feingold, which essentially codifies into law the fatuous notion that journalism defines objectivity.
But the rules which any journalist acknowledges define real commercial journalism include not only claims of "journalistic ethics and objectivity" but the deadlines which guarantee superficiality, and the "if it bleeds it leads" negativity for the sake of ratings which is perfectly analogous to the boy who cried, "Wolf!"
It is arrogant for anyone, and doubly so for anyone whose job it is to attract attention, to claim the virtue of objectivity.
The other virtue commonly claimed by journalists it courage; journalism persistently boasts of "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable." Either journalism is powerful, or it is courageous - or it carefully chooses "comfortable" enemies who are not dangerous. In fact every "objective" journalist studiously avoids challenging one particular type of enemy - other "objective" journalists.
As noted earlier, the distinction between the Democratic Party and so-called "objective" journalism is becoming ephemeral. A Democratic politician can become an "objective" journalist at the drop of a hat; a Republican is suspect if s/he dares so much as get a gig as a lifestyle commentator. But the defining characteristic of liberalism - of journalism and Democratic politics - is that nothing matters to its practitioners except PR.
Nothing at all matters to these people but PR, and that is an elitist, antidemocratic, and essentially a cowardly POV. Because the individual practitioner of journalism is afraid of the collective, and the Democratic politician defines his politics by whatever negativity is coming from that collective.
Journalism, and the rest of liberalism, is just cheap talk and second-guessing. Socialism - the advocacy of government ownership of "the means of production" - is actually a second guess in the sense that "the means of production" themselves, and most products which are produced, have been developed by private enterprises which succeeded while other enterprises failed. Socialism wants the credit for the successes, and has no interest in taking responsibility for the failures. Yet the liberals do not already own the successes because they did not know which ones would be successes and which would be failures - only time shows that.
We the people have been subject all our lives to a massive propaganda campaign to blind us to the reality that journalism and the rest of liberalism is superficial, negative, arrogant, and cowardly. IOW, that journalism is cowardly, bullying leadership of a cowardly, bullying Democratic polical "leadership." Every four years the Democratic Party nominates a candidate for POTUS - but they do not nominate a leader. They do not want a leader. At least since x42 they have been all symbolism and no substance. They'll say anything that sounds good at the moment.
Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Conservatism IS Compassion ^ | Sept 14, 2001 | Conservatism_IS_Compassion
So it would seem. NYT and WaPo were elected to lead the charge, and it turned out to be a charge to the left? Concensus candidates? Or maybe by default because they had the most resources? Back room deal; as in a conspiracy to move the country to the left? </tinfoil> Seems important, no?
A friend of mine who is editorial page editor of a major northeastern newspaper with no organizational ties to The New York Times frequently complains that his superiors will not approve the coverage of any story that has not first been covered by The New York Times.
I gather your friend's employer would be considered "leaning to the left"? Maybe just basic laziness is part and parcel to the problem? Let someone else do the heavy lifting; no skin off our nose?
Regarding your pyramid, I would put the wire services, particularly the AP right up there amongst the top. Why? As you're probably aware, they are a wholly owned subsidiary of a media consortium led by the big boys. Tax exempt status too. How odd is that?
Why do these two newspapers tend to support the Democratic Party (which is not quite the same thing as supporting the left — or at least it didn't used to be)?
Well, my assumption is that both parties had their own media cheerleaders(at least early on), an assumption that may be wrong approaching/during the 20th centuty as I implied in an earlier post(conservatives may not have had any). If so, the Dims and the media have essentially moved in lockstep for most of their existence. If my assumption is correct, the Dim/current MSM agenda prevailed at the expense of the Pubbie/conservative agenda. A curiousity given the country is predominantly conservative, based on numerous studies. Seems important too?
FGS