Replies

The bias against all things traditional American is obvious on the alphabet news channels.

It certainly is. The motive for it is hiding in pain sight - journalists don’t do anything, and therefore take the opposite view to that of Theodore Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
The opposite of giving credit to the person who sticks his neck out and tries to accomplish something is cynicism towards the very idea of accomplishment. The succinct statement of which is,

You didn’t build that.
That attitude flatters the person who does nothing, and sneers at anyone who actually tries.
The actual problem is that journalism is homogeneous. Adam Smith warned in 1776 that

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
If it is "impossible indeed to prevent such meetings” among tradesmen generally, is doubly impossible in the case of journalists who, after all, communicate not merely with other journalists but with the public at large.
But the real systematic “meeting” of journalists is the virtual meeting of all major journalists with is the Associated Press newswire. That “meeting” started in 1848, and by the end of the Civil War was an establishment to be reckoned with. It has been in process continuously ever since, and therefore if Adam Smith’s warning means anything at all, it means that people of the trade of journalism are in cahoots with each other and in conspiracy against the public interest - and have been since memory of living man runneth not to the contrary.
The existence of multiple news services is actually not even relevant; there could be five newswires of equal size without changing the principle that the journalists within each of them would do the same thing that they all do within the AP. They would still follow the same incentive to cynicism that they do now.
The existence of the AP long predates the Sherman Antitrust Act, but SCOTUS found the AP to be in violation of that act in 1945. But back then, the AP was “too big to fail.” In the 21st Century, the rationale that newswires are the only way to conserve scarce/expensive telegraph bandwidth flies in the face of the technological fact that the cost of nationwide, and even worldwide, transmission bandwidth has been made trivial by the advance of technologies such as satellites, lasers, and fiber optics. The only question is who will undertake to sue the pants off the AP and its membership, joint and several liability, for libeling Republicans by tar and feathering anyone (even Hispanic Democrat George Zimmerman) who they can portray as being a white man.
The lawsuit should also, of course, name the FCC for enabling the transmission of those libels, and the FEC for enforcing unconstitutional “Campaign Finance Reform” laws in contravention of “the freedom of . . . the press.”