Socialists ("liberals"?--same difference) disdain, and lust for the power to control, the people. But, lacking titles of nobility, socialists find democratic legitimacy necessary for their ambitions. This implies the need for the socialist to patronize--speak in the name of, even as he disdains--society (a.k.a. We the people).
While it is true that Liberal "bias" in "the press" is the political expression of the prevailing propaganda wind produced by comercial short-deadline journalism, the nexus between media and porlitical liberalism is not limited to that business interest. Those who lust for power are attracted both to liberal politics and to journalism and the acadamy. The revolving door between "the press" and liberal--but not conservative--politics inheres in that nexus.
Talk radio is a critique of society from a frankly conservative perspective. But the statement,
is a self-critique.
Therefore talk radio critiques society more broadly than "objective journalism" does.
Respect for the typical American is one thing, and a desire to patronize a large segment of the population is a different matter altogether. There are various approaches to satisfying a desire for superiority over one's fellows. The Christian way of excelling by service is entirely compatible with the institutions of a democratic republic.
By contrast the "way of the world" is to seek power directly rather than respect among equals. Power, for example, to raise taxes and increase regulation felt by the typical American, and to lavish or restrain government payments to individuals of great or small means. But government power is not the only form of power, there is also psychological power in the form of academic or media credentials.
Academic credentials such as professorships and doctoral degress produce a presumption of intelligence and knowledge, but there is also a less rigorous way to attain such presumption. It is also possible to gain that presumption by demagoguery--by flattering the ignorant with praise of their knowledge, and the unprinipled with praise of their morality. That is the way of celebrity and public relations.
Public relations is the art of manipulating people with "positioning". For example, the segregation of overt opinion on the editorial/op-ed pages "positions" the rest of the paper as not being a mere matter of opinion--as "objective."
Another example of PR is the extent to which journalists self-regulate the competition among themselves. This is a form of go-along-to-get-along behavior quite as pernicious as price-fixing agreements to limit competition among manufactureres or merchants. It is, accordingly, conducted sub rosa even though the result--homogeneous viewpoint projection among journalists--is in plain sight.
Commercial journalism's business plan is to entertain by novelty/unpredictability and to entertain by frightening the reader. Journalism is a form of entertainment and would fail commercially if it did not serve that function. Other forms of entertainment--movies and TV dramas in particular--manifest a markedly similar, and similarly homogeneous, viewpoint. And journalists display a remarkable aversion to conflict among themselves, which would subject them to the approbium of other operatives of journalism. Accordingly journalists can best be seen not as apart from the celebrity entertainment melieu, but in and of it, differing in relatively small degree from the actor or, especially, the playright/screenwriter.
If journalists are not individually apart from entertainment celebrity, they are as a group the pilot fish of the celebrity melieu. Journalists as a group--and it is as a group that their behavior and importance is best understood--not only model timidity in their conformism within journalism but reinforce timidity everywhere else. They do so by militantly using any excuse and every excuse to write a story to scare their audiences into paying attention to them.
Journalism strongly tends to ignore any story which does not put someone and/or some institution upon whom the middle-class depends in a bad light. A story about crime will either find the police incompetent to capture and convict the perpetrator, or overzealous in doing so. A story about war will show the military in a similar way, either in a quagmire or being bullies.
As between the middle class American who identifies with we-the-people, on the one hand, and the acolyte of the power of PR on the other, which one will aspire to be a celebrity? And how could an acolyte of Public Relations--who thinks that a printing press or a broadcast license is a license to control the sheeple--possibly respect voters? The answer is that they cannot, and they do not. Socialists ("liberals"?--same difference) disdain, and lust for the power to control, the people. But, lacking titles of nobility, socialists find democratic legitimacy necessary for their ambitions. This implies the need for the socialist to patronize--speak in the name of, even as he disdains--society. Socialists are noted for a tendencey to "love humanity but can't stand people).
Liberal "bias" in "the press" is the name of the prevailing propaganda wind. It is produced by the bad news, scare-the-people negativity of comercial journalism. The effect of that negativity is exacerbated by the superficiality of journalism. That effecto is to question the benevolence/competence of the so-called "establishment."
While "the press" insinuates that all other commercial enterprises are venal and that the Constitution defines journalism as being objective and not subject to ideological scrutiny, the truth is that it is journalism itself which best fits the description of an entity which exists to control competition. The establishshment which calls itself "the press" denies its own existence as an effective unitary entity, but it punishes those who violate its turf. That turf is the high ground public relations, the presumption of objectivity. The nexus between media and porlitical liberalism is not limited to that business interest. Those who lust for power are attracted both to liberal politics and to journalism and the academy. The revolving door between "the press" and liberal--but not conservative--politics expresses that nexus. The power of the academy operates at a more retail level of individual students but is, for that, able to be more coercive of the student than the mere journalist--who can be ignored without penalty--is able to do.