Sounds plausible to me, my friend.
"Back room deal; as in a conspiracy to move the country to the left? "
I know it sure looks *like* the stuff of "conspiracy", and, it probably is one of -- if not "The" -- conspiracy of all times.
Yet *they'd* never admit it in view of the fact(s), eh?
Recall when we were "kids" FGS, every few years one of the major dailies, somewhere, would be struck by the union thugs -- be it "pressmen", "drivers" in circ or whoever -- & it'd result in stopping the presses cold?
Sometimes the labor stoppage would keep that pub from printing for a fairly respectable length of time, eh?
Well lemme ask you something, a question that just *struck* me -- :o) -- the other day.
When was the last major daily you heard of having to deal with a strike?
Hmmmm??
Is there a connection with the "labor rest" at these Liberal-Socialist shit-holes & purveyors of garbage, the proverbial Faustian Deal, perhaps?
Would explain *much* in the mosaic of the unexplainable.
>"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"?"
BWAHAAAA!!!!!!
He'd better damned well be left-of-center, if he values his employment.
Another reason *why* I say one *facet* of the (unadmitted) "conspiracy" is what one must conform to *IF* they're to survive within these modern day Liberal-Socialist mouth-organs.
"Maybe just basic laziness is part and parcel to the problem? Let someone else do the heavy lifting; no skin off our nose?"
I'm sure that's a *component*.
But my nose smells abject cowardice, too.
Cowardice on the part of each & every individual who knows damned well "it's" wrong, yet says nothing out of fear for themselves & their own wellbeing.
Can't say I blame 'em much, either.
This ain't 1776 where a mob could grab their muskets & go routh the dogs, y'know.
Until a way to securing the means to housing & nourishment is invented, people will succumb to those in positions of power.
Just the way it is.
"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?"
;^)
Uh-huh.
You got it; or, all that needs gettin'.
Bust-up the *foundation blocks* making up the Associated Quisling Network & gravity takes over & finishes the job.
~sigh~
(~dreaming on this lazy summer afternoon.)
"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)?"
"Democratic Party" *is* the same as "The Left", that's a silly statement.
Forget the *whys* behinds the two rags, find out WTF took over the Democratic Party, eliminate 'em & the rags will swing in whatever direction the new *head* looks.
Priorities, man. :o)
"Well, my assumption is that both parties had their own media cheerleaders(at least early on)..."
No "assuming" necessary here, they still do.
"...an assumption that may be wrong approaching/during the 20th centuty as I implied in an earlier post(conservatives may not have had any)."
Bull.
Was only relatively recently "Republicans" began calling themselves "conservative" here in the states. (~this ain't bloody England; although, what the two [main] sides supposedly represent have similarities, they're not quite the same, nonetheless.)
I clearly remember it was the "Republicans" who dominated the MSM, and I ain't that old.
Look what the leakers *did* when they had control!BR> Pissed-off a LOT of people, usually "youngsters", who although the brainstems might've been were the epitome of "Useful Idiots" then, they nonetheless grew up to fill the ranks of the Liberal-Socialists promoting the Liberal-Socialist cause(s), today.
Liberal-Socialist's *leaders* are, interestingly enough, incredibly easy to *see*,too, IF one's old enough to recall say, *35* years ago?
Their leaders just seem caught in a time warp of sorts, never changed their outside accordingly as the years passed from what they were back when to what they profess, today.
Ponytails, Birkenstocks, club ties & all.
"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."
Not quite, the MSM rags "played the room" and that meant pursued selling their pap to the unwashed *masses* within the overgrowing major metropolitan areas around the nation.
Listen my friend, the rags -- all of 'em -- have "Boards of Directors" like any other business.
The BoDs are made up of the creme de creme from each given market they're doing business, not a mob of wild eyed Marxists.
Whatever the rags are today is because these blue-blood milquetoast assholes gave *it* [read: direction] their personal blessing(s).
And their *stockholders* agreed, fully.
*Period*
"A curiousity given the country is predominantly conservative, based on numerous studies. Seems important too?"
Not necessarily true.
Look at the urban areas.
The political scientists sure do look, and the quisling mediots looking to make a buck do, also.
They watch like *hawks*.
"Noteworthy item, supporting my assumption about "partisan" media. They've always been with us???"
Always.
From Day #1, and before.
Printing one's POV on a sheet of paper in an effort to persuade others & thereby gain control is what the human experience has been all about here & around the world for a very long time, it seems to me.
"Newspapers began folding in the 1950's. Which ones? Liberal and conservative alike? I somehow doubt it."
Well don't.
First off the entire notion of "Liberal" v.s. "Conservative didn't exist in the 50s.
Rags sympathetic to "labor" those sympathetic to "business", big or otherwise, yes.
But "Liberal" & "conservative"?
Balderdash.
I realize my example's purely anecdotal, but in the city of Milwaukee -- where I grew up close to -- there used to be a morning daily called The Milwaukee Sentinel and an evening daily called The Milwaukee Journal, OK?
The morning a "pro-business" pub & the other "pro-labor".
One could *easily* tell what another's politics were by simply looking at which of the two they read.
Both "markets" were being served and Milwaukee is hardly the exception, it was "The Rule".
Every major city had two sides to the story, every single one of 'em with precious few exceptions.
"My simple mind is beginning to sense some chicanery afoot by the leftist press."
Well I'd agree on the chicanery, alright.
But perhaps not for the same reason(s) as yours. {g}
"Cooking the circulation numbers even then, sweetheart deals for advertisers, exclusive contracts, yukking it up for Dim ne'er-do-wells in exchange for juicy tidbits on Pubbies?"
Been that way forever, the whole magilla, *save* for the "cooking" of circ numbers in the daily newspaper's heyday.
They didn't need to do that.
Most people read one side of the story or the other.
IF one of the competitors within a given market could prove the other was fixing their numbers that'd spell *scandel* & that'd in turn would be the end of the perp pub.
Advertisers would make a wholesale exodus & for fast it'd make the publisher's collective heads spin, so the rag woul go down the tubes.
Too much to risk back then & not nearly enough to gain with such a risky scheme; but, today that's not true anymore as we know all too well.
Even so the suspect scoundrels are still publishing, eh?
"I suspect the criminal enterprise known as the Democratic party has many a soul mate in the MSM. Birds of a feather?"
Yea probably, but the bastards also have strong interests in "Law", "Academia", "Labor", "Law Enforcement" et al ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Wondering *why* the Liberal-Socialist quislings in the media play to a room filled with that ilk kind sheds light on the whole shittin' caboodle to me.
In America circa 2005, FGS?
It's called "Business" and you'd best watch your step 'round here if you're going to go on the offensive against "business" -- for whatever reason(s), "patriotism" notwithstanding -- y'know?
I mean when in Rome & all that. :o)
"Add to that the liklihood the ne'er-do-wells in the liberal media were not as constrained by the "truth of the matter" as their conservative counterparts, so their papers began to take on a more "fantastic" appearance."
Not "bull" this time, bullshit.
The "conservative" rags are as corrupt as the other side, only differentiating aspect is how far in each direction they've moved.
But to say one has a "lock" of the trutrh as opposed to the other is simply ludicrous (~& I ain't talkin' 'bout some numbskull rapper moron, either).
The same power auger will be used to screw the raskels at the head of the nation's disgraceful rags into the ground, when they die.
Fact.
"Jayson Blairs may have been around a long time unbeknownst to us."
Jayson Blairs -- like bad weather -- will always be with us.
Now whether or not we take our heads outa the dark recesses of our posterior long enough to see 'em for what they are?
That's another matter, altogether.
"Are we getting closer to some answers?"
Depends.
Hearing what you want to hear, yet? {g}
Well, it's back to the garden with my raggedy butt & the relative sanity.
...of *weeds*. ;^)
Well, maybe here--> When was the last major daily you heard of having to deal with a strike?
A most interesting observation! The paper/network/party of the working man; cajoling/leading the unwashed on to their workers paradise. How appropriate.
Is there a connection with the "labor rest" at these Liberal-Socialist shit-holes & purveyors of garbage, the proverbial Faustian Deal, perhaps?
You didn't come right out and say so, but of the labor strikes that hit the newspapers, do you think they were mostly limited to the conservative(for purposes of this discussion), dailies??? It would seem to follow. Add another contributing factor to the list?
"Democratic Party" *is* the same as "The Left", that's a silly statement.
Not necessarily, the Dims have not always been lesfists. Fact is, the parties have sortof flip flopped, along with the labels, and not so long ago. Remember, the Dims have "moved on" from a very conservative South, where they once reigned supreme.
Forget the *whys* behinds the two rags, find out WTF took over the Democratic Party, eliminate 'em & the rags will swing in whatever direction the new *head* looks.
I believe the whys behind the two rags(and most other major dailies) is critical to understanding our predicament. We're being bludgeoned daily by socialist dogma for no apparent reason? Do you believe if the Dims were to make a move to the right, the media would follow? Maybe if you expand on your thought.
"Well, my assumption is that both parties had their own media cheerleaders(at least early on)..."
No "assuming" necessary here, they still do.
How accurate would that statement have been 30, 20, or even 10 years ago? You'll agree the "progressives" had obtained a stranglehold on most, if not all, the major media outlets' effluent that lasted until very recently? What is of interest of course is the genesis of that stranglehold.
I clearly remember it was the "Republicans" who dominated the MSM, and I ain't that old.
Noted; see flip flops above ;^)
Not quite, the MSM rags "played the room" and that meant pursued selling their pap to the unwashed *masses* within the overgrowing major metropolitan areas around the nation.
You've touched upon another one of my theories, that is, print/programming is aimed at the most susceptible audience, not necessarily the most affluent, although there is some overlap. Those that read/watch this insufferable pap are the most likely to be influenced by the drummer's wares? The media just provides the marks?
First off the entire notion of "Liberal" v.s. "Conservative didn't exist in the 50s.
Maybe not with the attached labels, but there have been competing idealogies with their attendant media hypsters, as you stated, since the beginning. Federalist vs Anti Federalist were competing broad brush idealogies that have survived, in one fashion or another, for a couple hundred years in this country. The same, or similar, idealogies have probably been around for millennia. The only thing that changes is the label?
Wondering *why* the Liberal-Socialist quislings in the media play to a room filled with that ilk kind sheds light on the whole shittin' caboodle to me.
Kinda speaks to the good vs evil argument again. The fact that this whole shittin' caboodle is like-minded in their desire to kick God out of the country tells me a lot about 'em also.
The "conservative" rags are as corrupt as the other side..
Well for starters, you'll have to point out a couple to me; I'll go from there. Unless you're referring to the early days when the competing rags were probably hyprebole personified.
Well, it's back to the garden with my raggedy butt & the relative sanity. ...of *weeds*. ;^)
heh, heh. My garden is in 5 gallon buckets, and has been for a couple of years. How weeds can get started in a 5 gallon bucket is a mystery to me.
FGS