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