At mid 20th century there were still competing newspapers; many identifying themselves by party affiliation. There were even competing(idealogical?) major dailies well up into the 80's - early 90's; Houston Post vs Houston Chronicle being one example. While there's no question the Chronicle was and is a leftist rag, the Post IMO was not as far left(like FoxNews) as the Chronicle and was the paper of choice of most Republicans. A curious story behind the Post's demise BTW. They were essentially bought, then scuttled. The remains picked over by Hearst, who coincidentally owned the Chronicle.
It's difficult for me to lay the blame for our socialist leaning MSM fully at the feet of the lazy unwashed since, for most of the 20th century, "conservative" newspapers were still around, albeit with diminishing influence as the century rocked along. The conspiratorial part of me says there were other factors at play although I can't put my hands on anything in particular. Human nature would lead us to suspect that powerful people are almost always in the market for things that will consolidate and expand their power. That quest for power, like the quest for $'s, is an illness that can never be cured IMO, and when left unchecked can lead to all manner of problems.
On that note, the idle rich have been with us through the ages and what drives them is probably a curiousity to most of us. For the most well heeled, those at the top of the food chain, it would seem the drive towards social-isms is based on their belief they will be able to consolidate their power while at the same time eliminating or reducing their competition. Just a suspicion, but I'd bet a sawbuck the PTB have studied the shortcomings of previous efforts at socialism, and probably feel they may have it figured out. This time it will be different???
Would ramble some more, but chores are calling.
LS, would you mind also critiquing my rant and make any additions, subtractions, changes. BTW, still awaiting the history of the media.
Generally right, although maybe the term "socialism" is too strong for the WaPo, LA Times, and NY Times of the 1950s. They saw themselves as "liberal democrats," which, in the context of the day, meant anti-communism abroad and big government at home.